If the Chief of Police and the DA or PA are fishing/golfing/whatever buddies, that wouldn’t ever be a problem either. Right?

No reason at all to fear giving all-powerful prosecutors more tools to twist the truth or invent cases out of whole cloth. Right?

The Nifongs of this world do not need any more tools with which to administer their particular brand of law enforcement.

Good judges will prevent this from being a problem in most cases, but some smaller jurisdictions also have the judges in the fishing/golfing/whatever cliques alongside the Chief and the PA.

Likely, some good and some abuse will each flow from this decision.

I like the idea mentioned in the earlier comment about “bright lines” in this sort of endeavor. “Unreasonable” is in the eye of the beholder, if the beholder is a Supreme.

—- shrugs —-

Ed: I agree for the most part, but I predict a lot more “clerical” errors on upcoming warrant processing.

JackOfClubs on January 15, 2009 at 5:31 PM

My first thought too.

But that’s because I always look for ways you bend/break the rules. I’m a preventative troubleshooter or something.

- The Cat

It is a simple fact: originalists do not see an exclusionary rule in the Constitution.
medguy on January 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM

But, they see the 14th Amendment, due process. When a officer gives false statements to get a warrant. it destroys due process. Now, If a law enforcement officer is proven to have lied or stretched the truth to get a warrant, and the penalty is fifty years in prison for getting a false warrent, I say let the evicence stand. Two criminals go to prison. Exclusion is just about all there is to keep cops honest.

There is a certain caveat emptor quality here: after the warrant was said to be withdrawn, the fellow’s lawyer should have taken steps to be sure it really was out of the system.

njcommuter on January 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM

Huh? its now a Lawyers job to make sure that databases are updated correctly?

The internal audit trail of the computer records system should show that the withdrawl was never entered; that’s different from someone going in and destroying a withdrawl record. So there is at least a reasonable check against someone gaming this side of the system.

There is a certain caveat emptor quality here: after the warrant was said to be withdrawn, the fellow’s lawyer should have taken steps to be sure it really was out of the system.

On the prosecution. Once the defense moves to exclude based on a bad warrant, the presumption is that the evidence was not the product of a valid warrant. So the burden is on the prosecution to prove to the judge that it was an honest mistake.

ConservativeLawStudent on January 15, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Apparently, the Supremes didn’t interpret the law the way you’ve just described. If they had, Bennie would have walked — sans the meth and gun, of course.

Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM

On the prosecution. Once the defense moves to exclude based on a bad warrant, the presumption is that the evidence was not the product of a valid warrant. So the burden is on the prosecution to prove to the judge that it was an honest mistake.

ConservativeLawStudent on January 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM

I think one problem will be in how the courts interpret this…

As in your example, will the burden still be on the Prosecution to proove it was a reasonable mistake? Or will this shift the burden to the defense to have to proove it was a conspiricy.

Exclusionary rule gets narrowed considerably
…

I beg to differ. Prosecutors could compartmentalize decisions on a need to know basis. “Mistakes” could be made be made in the issuance of a warrant that were intended to be made by others in the department. The opportunity for abuses abound.

Innocents will not be convicted, but the guilty will be convicted by illegal searches — and whether you like it or not, that is NOT the American way.

tommylotto on January 15, 2009 at 1:31 PM

This is a valid point. But again, this opportunity for abuse has been around since the dawn of the rule. All this ruling does is update the exception to modern technology. If a prosecutor in 1999 found out that a warrant was revoked, she could have made the decision not to contact the officers on their way to apprehend the suspect based on that warrant then as well. The defense would move to exclude the evidence based on the revocation, and the burden would again be on the prosecution to prove honest mistake.

The problem with the “Exclusionary Rule” remains…..It does not protect the innocent, it protects the guilty.
Kasper Hauser on January 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Then why not have a police state? Since if you’re not guilty, you have nothing to fear!

Innocents will not be convicted, but the guilty will be convicted by illegal searches — and whether you like it or not, that is NOT the American way.

Sir Corky on January 15, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Actualy I read the results of this ruling a bit differently, which is why I’m worried.

The guy had no active warrant out. It apparently was not only not served prior, but was rescinded. The Cop went out and actively called another county, LOOKING for a warrant on this guy. Then, with no warrant in hand, stopped him, and searched him, after being “told” there was a warrant. This was not a standard traffic stop, this was an active search for dirt on this guy, and then the “mistake” gave the cop legal pretext to stop and search… and the Supremes have now validated that even though the guy should never have been stopped at all, evidence found is valid.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not sure how the Supremes can say this guy got due process, or was secure in his person, and effects… as there was no warrant, and at the time of the stop, apparently no probable cause.

Will we get similarly common-sense constructionists from Barack Obama when openings occur on the federal bench, and especially the Supreme Court?

No. He wants judges who will decide based on their conscience, not the law, remember?

I mean, it was just a clerical error; and having a typo like that on a warrant isn’t grounds for any repercussions anymore, right?

And if they do break into the wrong house; they’re now very vested in finding something, anything to justify their presence aren’t they?

With this ruling, if they find something, then they’re home free; typo on the warrant + crime = good outcome.

If they don’t find anything, then they’ll likely have issues resulting from breaking into the wrong house and tearing up your place with no real justification.

So now they REALLY need to find something… well that can’t turn out badly I’m sure. I bet this will work out fine for everyone… what do you mean you found heroin\meth\crack in my house?

In other words, less valid cases will be thrown out, not more bad cases included.

I have a feeling that you are a much bigger danger to the general public as an attorney or whatever it is you do in the prosecutors office, than I am in my car.

Ha! I’ve no idea how you got the idea I was a prosecutor or even a lawyer :) My expertise is mathematics, actually.

Typing doesn’t really have anything to do with driving a car, except when taking a drivers test. And if I type something wrong or don’t pay attention, I may not get my license. Or maybe I should argue that my mistake was just a technicality and I should get my license anyway.

Fine. But I’m counting on you to surrender your license if you’ve ever made even the most trivial mistake on the road. I mean, if you can’t be trusted to be error-free, get off the road, please!

Romeo13 on January 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM

This holding states does not state that the burden to issue a warrant is lowered, therefore you can’t just fabricate a reason for a warrant to exist. What it does is allow a validly created warrant a little leeway in case of a clerical or computing error.

You still need evidence to create a warrant, and if you don’t have that, a person who is arrested and in possession of other potentially incriminating evidence will have their case thrown out due to the warrant having no basis. Yes, it might be an inconvenience to the person who is illegally searched, but most prosecutors and cops will realize that their arrest won’t stick, and the case will be thrown out, ultimately proving a fabricated warrant useless.