RobNDenver
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
- Messages
- 275
Yesterday when the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases on the exclusionary rule, we see that there is a threat to one of the last remaining bulwarks against governmental intrusions into our lives: the exclusionary rule, which provides that evidence illegally seized by the police cannot be used as evidence in court.
The Supreme Court will consider the case of Herring v. United States, which questions whether that rule should be curtailed. In 2004, sheriff's deputies in Coffee County, Ala. arrested Bennie Herring based on a computer entry that showed an outstanding warrant for him, even though the warrant had been withdrawn five months earlier. He was then prosecuted for the drugs and gun found during the arrest.
The lower court said that the Sheriff's Office was negligent in not clearing out the warrant, but that the search of Mr. Herring by the arresting officer was in good faith, and the evidence derived from it could be used against Herring.
The simple fact is that the exclusionary rule is vital to the preservation of our liberties and must be maintained. There is no penalty that keeps law enforcement from illegally searching citizens except the rule that says that evidence illegally seized is not admissible.
We should watch this case carefully, because the impact it may have on the 4th Amendment is enormous.
The Supreme Court will consider the case of Herring v. United States, which questions whether that rule should be curtailed. In 2004, sheriff's deputies in Coffee County, Ala. arrested Bennie Herring based on a computer entry that showed an outstanding warrant for him, even though the warrant had been withdrawn five months earlier. He was then prosecuted for the drugs and gun found during the arrest.
The lower court said that the Sheriff's Office was negligent in not clearing out the warrant, but that the search of Mr. Herring by the arresting officer was in good faith, and the evidence derived from it could be used against Herring.
The simple fact is that the exclusionary rule is vital to the preservation of our liberties and must be maintained. There is no penalty that keeps law enforcement from illegally searching citizens except the rule that says that evidence illegally seized is not admissible.
We should watch this case carefully, because the impact it may have on the 4th Amendment is enormous.