Supreme Court of the United States

Bennie Dean Herring v. United States 

Decided Jan. 14, 2009 – 555 U.S. 135

 

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and this usually requires the police to have probable cause or a warrant before making an arrest. What if an officer reasonably believes there is an outstanding arrest warrant, but that belief turns out to be wrong because of a negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee? The parties here agree that the ensuing arrest is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but dispute whether contraband found during a search incident to that arrest must be excluded in a later prosecution.

Our cases establish that such suppression is not an automatic consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation. Instead, the question turns on the culpability of the police and the potential of exclusion to deter wrongful police conduct. Here the error was the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest. We hold that in these circumstances the jury should not be barred from considering all the evidence.

I

On July 7, 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned that Bennie Dean Herring had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department to retrieve something from his impounded truck. Herring was no stranger to law enforcement, and Anderson asked the county’s warrant clerk, Sandy Pope, to check for any outstanding warrants for Herring’s arrest. When she found none, Anderson asked Pope to check with Sharon Morgan, her counterpart in neighboring Dale County. After checking Dale County’s computer database, Morgan replied that there was an active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear on a felony charge. Pope relayed the information to Anderson and asked Morgan to fax over a copy of the warrant as confirmation. Anderson and a deputy followed Herring as he left the impound lot, pulled him over, and arrested him. A search incident to the arrest revealed methamphetamine in Herring’s pocket, and a pistol (which as a felon he could not possess) in his vehicle.

There had, however, been a mistake about the warrant. The Dale County sheriff’s computer records are supposed to correspond to actual arrest warrants, which the office also maintains. But when Morgan went to the files to retrieve the actual warrant to fax to Pope, Morgan was unable to find it. She called a court clerk and learned that the warrant had been recalled five months earlier. Normally when a warrant is recalled the court clerk’s office or a judge’s chambers calls Morgan, who enters the information in the sheriff’s computer database and disposes of the physical copy. For whatever reason, the information about the recall of the warrant for Herring did not appear in the database. Morgan immediately called Pope to alert her to the mixup, and Pope contacted Anderson over a secure radio. This all unfolded in 10 to 15 minutes, but Herring had already been arrested and found with the gun and drugs, just a few hundred yards from the sheriff’s office.

Herring was indicted in the District Court for the Middle District of Alabama for illegally possessing the gun and drugs. He moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that his initial arrest had been illegal because the warrant had been rescinded. 

***

In analyzing the applicability of the [exclusionary] rule, we must consider the actions of all the police officers involved. The Coffee County officers did nothing improper. Indeed, the error was noticed so quickly because Coffee County requested a faxed confirmation of the warrant.

***

The fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—i.e., that a search or arrest was unreasonable—does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. Indeed, exclusion “has always been our last resort, not our first impulse,” and our precedents establish important principles that constrain application of the exclusionary rule.

First, the exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it “‘result[s] in appreciable deterrence.’” We have repeatedly rejected the argument that exclusion is a necessary consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation. Instead we have focused on the efficacy of the rule in deterring Fourth Amendment violations in the future. 

In addition, the benefits of deterrence must outweigh the costs. “We have never suggested that the exclusionary rule must apply in every circumstance in which it might provide marginal deterrence.” ***

We [have] held that a mistake made by a judicial employee could not give rise to exclusion for three reasons: The exclusionary rule was crafted to curb police rather than judicial misconduct; court employees were unlikely to try to subvert the Fourth Amendment; and “most important, there [was] no basis for believing that application of the exclusionary rule in [those] circumstances” would have any significant effect in deterring the errors.

***

We do not suggest that all recordkeeping errors by the police are immune from the exclusionary rule. In this case, however, the conduct at issue was not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion. If the police have been shown to be reckless in maintaining a warrant system, or to have knowingly made false entries to lay the groundwork for future false arrests, exclusion would certainly be justified under our cases should such misconduct cause a Fourth Amendment violation. Petitioner’s fears that our decision will cause police departments to deliberately keep their officers ignorant are thus unfounded.

Petitioner’s claim that police negligence automatically triggers suppression cannot be squared with the principles underlying the exclusionary rule, as they have been explained in our cases. In light of our repeated holdings that the deterrent effect of suppression must be substantial and outweigh any harm to the justice system, we conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, any marginal deterrence does not “pay its way.” In such a case, the criminal should not “go free because the constable has blundered.” The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.

Justice GINSBURG, with whom Justice STEVENS, Justice SOUTER, and Justice BREYER join, dissenting.

Petitioner Bennie Dean Herring was arrested, and subjected to a search incident to his arrest, although no warrant was outstanding against him, and the police lacked probable cause to believe he was engaged in criminal activity. The arrest and ensuing search therefore violated Herring’s Fourth Amendment right “to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Court of Appeals so determined, and the Government does not contend otherwise. The exclusionary rule provides redress for Fourth Amendment violations by placing the government in the position it would have been in had there been no unconstitutional arrest and search. The rule thus strongly encourages police compliance with the Fourth Amendment in the future. The Court, however, holds the rule inapplicable because careless recordkeeping by the police—not flagrant or deliberate misconduct—accounts for Herring’s arrest.

I would not so constrict the domain of the exclusionary rule and would hold the rule dispositive of this case: “[I]f courts are to have any power to discourage [police] error of [the kind here at issue], it must be through the application of the exclusionary rule.” The unlawful search in this case was contested in court because the police found methamphetamine in Herring’s pocket and a pistol in his truck. But the “most serious impact” of the Court’s holding will be on innocent persons “wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information [carelessly maintained] in a computer data base.” 

The sole question presented [] is whether evidence the police obtained through the unlawful search should have been suppressed. In my view, the Court’s opinion underestimates the need for a forceful exclusionary rule and the gravity of recordkeeping errors in law enforcement.

The Court states that the exclusionary rule is not a defendant’s right; rather, it is simply a remedy applicable only when suppression would result in appreciable deterrence that outweighs the cost to the justice system.

***

Other [judges] have described “a more majestic conception” of the Fourth Amendment and its adjunct, the exclusionary rule. Protective of the fundamental “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” the Amendment “is a constraint on the power of the sovereign, not merely on some of its agents.” I share that vision of the Amendment.

The exclusionary rule is “a remedy necessary to ensure that” the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions “are observed in fact.” The rule’s service as an essential auxiliary to the Amendment earlier inclined the Court to hold the two inseparable.

***The exclusionary rule, it bears emphasis, is often the only remedy effective to redress a Fourth Amendment violation. Civil liability will not lie for “the vast majority of [F]ourth [A]mendment violations—the frequent infringements motivated by commendable zeal, not condemnable malice.” Criminal prosecutions or administrative sanctions against the offending officers and injunctive relief against widespread violations are an even farther cry.

***

Inaccuracies in expansive, interconnected collections of electronic information raise grave concerns for individual liberty. “The offense to the dignity of the citizen who is arrested, handcuffed, and searched on a public street simply because some bureaucrat has failed to maintain an accurate computer data base” is evocative of the use of general warrants that so outraged the authors of our Bill of Rights.

Negligent recordkeeping errors by law enforcement threaten individual liberty, are susceptible to deterrence by the exclusionary rule, and cannot be remedied effectively through other means. Such errors present no occasion to further erode the exclusionary rule. The rule “is needed to make the Fourth Amendment something real; a guarantee that does not carry with it the exclusion of evidence obtained by its violation is a chimera.” In keeping with the rule’s “core concerns,” suppression should have attended the unconstitutional search in this case.

For the reasons stated, I would reverse the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.

Justice BREYER, with whom Justice SOUTER joins, dissenting.

I agree with Justice GINSBURG and join her dissent. I write separately to note one additional supporting factor that I believe important. In <i>Arizona v. Evans, we held that recordkeeping errors made by a court clerk do not trigger the exclusionary rule, so long as the police reasonably relied upon the court clerk’s recordkeeping. The rationale for our decision was premised on a distinction between judicial errors and police errors.

Distinguishing between police recordkeeping errors and judicial ones not only is consistent with our precedent, but also is far easier for courts to administer than the Court’s case-by-case, multifactored inquiry into the degree of police culpability. I therefore would apply the exclusionary rule when police personnel are responsible for a recordkeeping error that results in a Fourth Amendment violation.

Notes, Comments, and Questions 

Many criminal procedure issues are litigated concurrently in multiple forums. For example, when deciding Miranda v. Arizona, the Court also resolved additional cases presenting the same question about custodial interrogation. Because most cases never reach the Supreme Court, it is common for two cases to present the same issue, for the Court to take only one of them, and for the Court’s decision of that case to resolve the other case. For example, imagine that on the same day that police scanned the home of Danny Lee Kyllo, other officers conducting an unrelated investigation scanned a different home, and the resident of that home sought exclusion of items found during an ensuing search. If the Court decided Kyllo v. United States; (Chapter 3) while the second case was pending, the defendant in the second case could rely upon the holding of Kyllo. In other words, the Court’s decision that thermal imaging of a home is a “search” would apply to all pending cases in which the issue was presented, and the judge in the second case would know that the second defendant’s home had been “searched” for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Notes, Comments, and Questions 

In Byrd v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018), the Court addressed whether rental car drivers who are not on a rental agreement (for example, someone given the keys by the person who is authorized to drive) have standing to object to a search of the car. The Court distinguished Rakas by emphasizing the reasonable expectation of privacy test.  In Byrd, the unauthorized driver was the only person in the car and had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the car sufficient to have standing.

In Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990), the Court considered the “warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a house where respondent Robert Olson was an overnight guest.” The question was whether the entry, along with Olson’s subsequent arrest, violated Olson’s Fourth Amendment rights. The Court decided yes and allowed Olson to exclude evidence found during the illegal search and seizure. Rejecting the state’s argument that Olson had no reasonable expectation of privacy because the searched location was not his “home,” the Court concluded “that Olson’s status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that he had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” The Court noted that one’s expectation of privacy while staying as an overnight guest must equal, if not exceed, that enjoyed by a person using a telephone booth. See Katz v. United States (Chapter 2).

Notes, Comments, and Questions 

Would a guest who was present for dinner or an afternoon barbecue have standing? Why or why not? That individual would have more connection to the home than in Carter but less than Minnesota v. Olson. 

In Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007), the Court applied the holdings of Olson and Carter to the case of a passenger riding in a car stopped by police. Prior precedent made clear that a driver whose car is subjected to a traffic stop is “seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment” and could challenge the admissibility of evidence found during an unlawful stop. The question was whether a passenger in the same car could also exclude evidence. Quoting language from United States v. Mendenhall (Chapter 19) stating that “a seizure occurs if ‘in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave,’” the Brendlin Court found that a vehicle “stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver,” and it rejected “any notion that a [reasonable] passenger would feel free to leave, or to terminate the personal encounter any other way, without advance permission.”

The Court held that passengers could invoke the exclusionary rule with respect to evidence found during unlawful vehicle stops, noting that the opposite result would encourage bad police behavior. “The fact that evidence uncovered as a result of an arbitrary traffic stop would still be admissible against any passengers would be a powerful incentive to run the kind of ‘roving patrols’ that would still violate the driver’s Fourth Amendment right.”

Because Brendlin argued that his rights were violated by the unlawful stop of the car—as opposed to by the search of the car—his claim was not barred by the rule of Rakas v. Illinois.