Political Science

The United States Supreme Court (USSC) heard the case of Herring v. United States in 2009.  The background of the case is as follows.  On July 7, 2004, Bennie Dean Herring was arrested for a failure to appear (FTA) warrant from a neighboring county.  Earlier that day, Investigator Anderson heard that Herring had gone to the impound lot to get some of his personal effects from his truck.  Anderson had the county warrant clerk run Herrings name to see if there were any outstanding warrants.  No warrants were returned.  On a hunch, he asked the clerk to contact the neighboring county and run Herrings name for any outstanding warrants.  One warrant was returned on a felony FTA.  Anderson asked to have the warrant faxed over right away.  Anderson then left and took a deputy with him.  Anderson pulled Herring over, arrested him, and searched him.  Anderson found a gun and drugs on Herrings person.  At all this was taking place, the neighboring countys clerk had called the local county clerk to inform her that the warrant had been pulled five months earlier and was no longer valid.  The local clerk called Anderson and informed him of the news, but it was too late.  The warrant had already been executed.
   
Herring was indicted for gun possession and drug violations.  He moved to have the evidence suppressed, but the motion was denied.  The matter was appealed to the 11th Circuit Court and that court affirmed the decision of the lower court.  Herring appealed to the United States Supreme Court (USSC). The USSC was left with the decision of whether or not the exclusionary ruled was applicable to this particular case.
   
The majority of the USSC ruled to affirm the decision of the lower court.  The majority ruled that the exclusionary rule was not applicable in this case, but that there was a direct violation of
Herrings Fourth Amendment rights.  The majority also ruled that the use of the exclusionary rule was to deter police misconduct and to save money.
   
Justice Ginsburg dissented that the failure to bring records up to date was negligent on the part of the clerk.  He also stated that the arrest did violate Herrings Fourth Amendment rights.  Ginsburg did not agree with the majority to affirm the ruling of the lower court.  Justice Breyer wrote a separate dissent that he agreed with the opinion and dissent of Ginsburg (United States Supreme Court, 2009).  He affirmed that the exclusionary rule was meant to deter police misconduct, and stated further that there was no evidence to prove that the clerks actions were intentional for not updating the warrant database.
   
The USSC made the right decision.  Yes, there absolutely was a violation of Herrings Fourth Amendment rights under the US Constitution, but the exclusionary rule does not apply.  The officers were acting in good faith, although Andersons conduct is questionable.  Andersons actions towards Herring seemed to be overbearing, obsessive, and aggressive.  He had no reason to run a warrant check on Herring other than he held a personal grudge against him for spreading a rumor.  Officers of the law are sworn by an oath to serve and protect the community, not to harass and abuse its citizens    
Government searches cross the line when they are able to ascertain what or who is in our homes without our knowing.  They cross the lines when they listen in on our telephone conversations without our knowing.  Unless they have a warrant to do so, they should be prohibited from violating the rights of US citizens in such a gross fashion.  The government is turning into a dictatorship.  There is too much censorship and provisionary rules that all contradict themselves.  The government is turning socialist, and in a matter of a few years it will be a communist rule.  Just wait and see.