Herring v. United States
Citation and Court
555 U.S. 135 (2009) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Officers from Coffee County arrested Herring based on a warrant that appeared in the neighboring Dale County computer database. When Herring was being taken into custody, they found drugs and an illegal firearm. Shortly thereafter, Dale County clerks discovered the warrant had actually been recalled months earlier, but their records had not been updated. The arrest and search occurred before anyone knew of the error.
Issue
Does the exclusionary rule require suppression of evidence obtained during an arrest when the arrest was made in good-faith reliance on a warrant that turned out to have been recalled due to isolated clerical negligence in a police department’s records?
Holding
No; isolated, non-systemic negligence in maintaining police records does not rise to the level of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct that triggers the exclusionary rule.
Rule / Doctrine
The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent police misconduct. Where the negligence is isolated and attenuated from the arrest—clerical errors by police personnel who were not involved in the constitutional violation—the deterrence benefit of suppression does not outweigh its social costs.
Significance
Herring extends Arizona v. Evans (court clerical errors) to police department clerical errors. It adopts a cost-benefit, deterrence-focused framework for the exclusionary rule that has been influential in shaping the rule’s contours. Critics argue it creates incentives for negligent record-keeping; supporters note it avoids windfalls for defendants when police acted in good faith.