Case / Legal Brief for Herring V. U.S. 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009)
Here I will write a hub on the brief for the legal case Herring V. U.S. case number 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009)
Case and citation: Herring V. U.S. 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009)
Facts: 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. Knowing Herring’s past he called local sheriff’s offices to see if there were any warrants out for the arrest. When a Dale County warrant had come back positive, officers asked for the warrant to be faxed over for confirmation. Anderson and a deputy followed Herring after leaving the lot while the information and pulled him over, and arrested him. Upon arrest they found methamphetamine and a pistol. He was then prosecuted for the both items found, and Herring asked for a motion to suppress the evidence based on the fact his arrest was illegal based on the fact the warrant had been rescinded.
History: Bennie Dean Herring ( defendant) was charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearm and knowingly possessing methamphetamine. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Myron H. Thompson, J, denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence recovered in search incident to his arrest. Defendant was subsequently convicted on both counts and he appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Carnes, Circuit Judge, 492 F.3d 1212 Affirmed. Certiorari was granted. Affirmed.
Rationale: The court’s voted in favor of the evidence, and denied the motion to suppress based on the ground of the warrant. Because the warrant had been thought to be active at the time of the arrest, and was based off of negligence, not on purpose that the courts find that the evidence does not have to get suppressed. Also that the exclusionary rule applies to police mistakes that make it necessary for suppression not on the systematic errors that can happen in the filing system.
What could have changed the case: That as long as the police acted based off of the law in thinking that the warrant was active nothing was done wrong, but if they knowingly knew the warrant was not active this would have changed the case.