Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Herring v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentexclusionary rulegood faithpolice negligencearrest warrantFourth Amendmentexclusionary rule

Facts

Investigator Mark Anderson asked Coffee County warrant clerk Sandy Pope to check for outstanding warrants for Bennie Dean Herring, and after Coffee County found none, Pope asked Dale County clerk Sharon Morgan to check Dale County's database. Morgan reported that there was an active arrest warrant for Herring, so officers stopped and arrested him, and a search incident to arrest revealed methamphetamine in Herring's pocket and a pistol in his vehicle. Morgan then discovered that the warrant had actually been recalled five months earlier, but that recall had not been entered into Dale County's computer records. The parties assumed for purposes of the case that the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, and the dispute concerned whether the discovered evidence had to be suppressed.

Issue

When officers reasonably rely on police records indicating an outstanding arrest warrant, but the warrant had in fact been recalled because of an isolated negligent bookkeeping error by another police employee, must the evidence found in a search incident to that arrest be excluded? More generally, does a negligent police recordkeeping mistake automatically trigger the exclusionary rule after a Fourth Amendment violation?

Rule

Suppression is not an automatic consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation. The exclusionary rule applies only when police conduct is sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that the deterrence benefits are worth the substantial social costs; it serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, and in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence, but not isolated negligence attenuated from the arrest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Officer Nina Flores stopped Devin Marsh after a county dispatcher reported an outstanding misdemeanor warrant from a neighboring county. The warrant had actually been recalled three months earlier, but a records clerk forgot to remove it from the sheriff's database; there is no evidence of other database problems. A search incident to arrest uncovered cocaine in Devin's jacket.

Assuming the arrest violated the Fourth Amendment, should the cocaine be suppressed?

Explanation. The majority held that exclusion is not an automatic consequence of a Fourth Amendment violation. The key questions are police culpability and whether exclusion would meaningfully deter future misconduct enough to outweigh the social costs. Where the error is an isolated negligent bookkeeping mistake, attenuated from the arrest, suppression is not warranted.