FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 17, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble J erome Fa

rris, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation. [ P U B L I S H ]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 06- 1079 5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00161 -CR- T- S UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us BENNIE DEAN HERRING, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f o r th e M i d d l e D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 17 , 200 7) Be fo re CA RN E S, P RY O R and F A RR IS , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * CAR NE S, Circuit Judge:2

T he f ac ts o f thi s c as e pr es en t an in te re sti ng i ssu e inv olv ing w he the r to a ppl y the exclusion ary

rule. O ffice rs in one jurisdiction check with em ploy ees of a law en fo rc em en t a ge nc y

in an oth er

j ur isd ic tio n and are tol d th at the re is anout standi ng warrant f or an individ ual. A cting in g ood faith on that inform ation the officers arre st th e p ers on an d fi ndco nt rab an d. Ittu rn s o ut th e warra nt ha d b een reca ll ed . T he e rr one ous inf

orm at ionthat l ed

to the arr es t and s earc h is the r es ult of agoo d fa ithm ist ak e by

an e m plo y ee of the a ge nc y

in the oth er

j ur isd ic tio n. D oe s th e exclusion ary

rule re quire that evidence of the contraband be supp ressed, or does t he g oo d f

a i t h e xc e pt i ont o t he r

ul e p e rm i tu se o f

the e vi de nc e ? I. On a July after noon in 200 4, Be nnie Dean H erring drove his pickup truck to the Co ff

ee Co unty , A la

ba m a Sh er if

f’ s D ep ar tm en t t o c he ck

on anothe r of

his tr uc ks, w hic h w as im

poun de d inthe D ep ar

tm en t’ s lo t. A s H er

ri ng w as pr ep ar ing to l eave the S he ri ff

’ s D ep ar tm en t, Co ff

ee Co unty

I nve sti ga tor

Mark A nde rs on arri ve d a t wo rk . Anderson knew H erring and had reason to susp ect that there m igh t be an ou tst an din g w ar rant f or his arr es t. A nde rs on a ske d S an dy P ope , the w ar rant c le rk f or the Co ff ee Co unty

S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t, to ch ec k th e co unty da taba se . Sh e did

and t old A nde rs on tha t sh e sawno a ct ive w ar rants f or H er ri ng in Co ffee Co un ty.3

In ve sti ga tor

A nde rs on a ske d P ope to ca ll the S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t i n ne ighbor ing D al e Co unty to se e if the re w er e an y

out standi ng w ar

rants f or H er ri ng there. Po pe te le phon ed

S haro n M or gan, the D al e Co unty w ar rant c le rk , w ho ch ec ke d he r da ta

ba se and t old

P ope that the re w as an a ct ive w ar rant i n th at

c ounty charging Her

ring with failure to appear on a felony

charge. Pope re lay ed that in fo rm at io n t o An de rs on . Ac ting q uickly

on the inform ation, Investigator Anderson and a Coffe e Co u n t y d ep u t y s h er i ff

fo l l o we dHe rr i n g as h e d ro v e a wa y fr o m th e S h er i ff

’s D ep ar tm en t. T he y

pul le d H er

ri ng o ve r an d arr es te d hi m pur suant t o th e D al e Co unty w ar rant, and the y

se ar ch ed both hi s pe rs on and the tr uc k in ci de nt t o th e ar re st. T he se ar chtur

ne d up som e m etha m

phe tam ine in H er

ri ng’ s po ck et

and a p i s t o l u n d e r

th e f r o n ts e a to f

h i s tr u c k . Al l o f

th a th ap p e n e di n C o f

f e e C o u n t y. Me an w hil e ba ck

in D al e Co unty , W ar

rant C le rk

Mo rg anw as tr

y ing in va in to l oc at e a co py

of the a ct ua l w ar rant f or H er ri ng’ s arr es t. A ft er

she c oul d no t f

ind one , she c he ck ed

w iththe D al e Co unty

Cl er k’ s O ff ic e, w hic h in fo rm ed

he r that the w ar rant h ad be enr ec al le d. Mo rg anim m ed ia te ly c al le d P ope , he r co unt er

part in Coffee County , to re lay

this inform ation, and Pope transm itted it to th e tw o Coffee Co unty arr es tin g of

fi ce rs . O nly

te n to f if te enm inu te s ha d e la

pse d be tw ee n th e tim e that M or gan inD al e Co unty ha d to ld P ope that an a ct ive w ar rant e xis te d and4

the tim e that Morgan called her back to correc t that statem ent. I n that sho rt int er va l, how ev er , the Co ff

ee Co unty

of fi ce rs ha d a ct ed

on the ini tia l i nf

orm at ion by arres ti ng Herri ng an d c arrying ou t t he sea rch es in ci de nt to th atarre st . As a result of the contraband found d uring the searches, He rring wa s in di ct edon ch arg es of p os se ss in g m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 84 4( a), an d b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). H e m ove d to sup pr es s any e vid en ce of

the m etha m

phe tam ine and fi re ar m on g ro unds that the se ar ch es that tur ne d th em up w er e not

inc ide nt t o a lawf ul arrest, because the ar

rest w arrant on which the officers a cted had been res ci nd ed . The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d d en y in g t he m ot io n t o s up pr es s. He found th at the arr esting officers conducted their search in a good faith belief that the arr es t w ar

rant w as sti ll out standi ng, and tha t the y ha d f ound the dr ugs an d fir earm be fo re l earn in g t he warran t h adbe en reca ll ed . T he m ag istrate j udge co nc lud ed

that the re w as “ sim

ply no r ea son to b el ie ve that a ppl ic at ionof

the ex cl usi onary

r ule he re w oul d de te r the oc curr en ce of any f uture m ist ak es . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed

the m ag istrate j udge ’ s r ec om m en da tio n and m ad e the ad dit ion al f

ind ing that the e rr one ous w ar ra nt i nf orm at ionappe ar ed

to be the f

au lt of Da le County

Sherif f’ s Depar tm ent personnel ins tead of any one in Coffee5

Co un ty. Aj ur y c onvi ct ed

H er ri ng o f both c ount s, and h e w as se nte nc ed to 27 m onths im pr iso nm en t. H is s ole c ont en tio n onappe al is that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing his m oti on t o su

ppr es s th e dr

ugs an d f ir earm that w er e fo und dur ing the se arch of h is tru ck . II. T he part ie s a gr ee on the c en tr al f ac ts. T he Co ff

ee Co unty

of fi ce rs m ad e the ar re st and c ar

ri ed out the se ar ch es inc ide nt t o it ba se d onthe ir

goo d f ai th, re as ona ble be lie f that the re w as an ou tst an din g w ar ra nt f or H er ri ng i n D ad e County . They

found the drug s and firear m before le arning that the warr ant had be enr ec al le d. T he e rr one ous inf orm at ionabout

the w ar rant r es ult ed

f ro m the ne gli ge nc e of

som eo ne in the D al e Co unty S he ri ff ’ s D ep ar tm en t, and n o on e in Coffee County

contributed to the m istake. T he only dispu te is whether, under the se f ac ts, the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule r equir es the sup pr es sio n of the f ir earm and dru gs. A. T he F ourth A m en dm en t pr ote ct s th e “ ri ght of the pe opl e to b e se cure in the ir pe rs ons, hou se s, pa

pe rs , and e ff

ec ts, a ga ins t unre as ona

ble se ar ch es and se iz ur es . ” U nit ed

S ta te s C onst . A m en d. I V . T he se ar ch es of H er ri ng’ s pe rs on and tr uc k c an not

be j ust if ie d a s in ci de nt t o alaw fu l arr es t be ca use the arr es t w as not6

lawf ul. T here w as no probable cause for the ar rest and the warrant had been re sc ind ed . T ha t m eans the se ar ch es vio la te d H er ri ng’ s F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts, bu t i t d oe s n ot m ean th atth e ev id en ce o bt ai ne d t hr ou gh th em m us t b e su pp res se d. A s th e Su pr em e Co urt ha s to ld u s onm or e than on e oc ca sio n, w he the r to a ppl y the ex cl usi onary

r ule is “ aniss ue se parate f ro m the que sti on [ of

] w he the r the F ourth Am endm ent rights of the party seeking to in voke the rule wer e violated by police co nduc t. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. L eo n, 468 U . S. 897 , 906 , 104 S . Ct . 340 5, 341 2 ( 1984 ) (quotin g Illinois v. G ates, 462 U.S . 213, 223, 103 S. Ct. 2317 , 2324 (1983)). T he L eo n c as e is the pr em ie r ex am ple of the dis tin ct ionbe tw ee n f ind ing a co nst itu tio na l vi olatio n and e xc lud ing e vid en ce ba se d onthat vi olatio n. L eo n he ld that the exclusio nary

rule does not bar the use of evidence obtained byofficer s acting in go od faith reliance on a w arrant which is later f oundnot to b e supported by probable cause. Id. at 922, 104 S. C t. at 3420 . The C ourt’ s analy sis of whether the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule sho uld

be appl ie d to c onst itu tio na l vi olatio ns s te m m ing f ro m m ist ak es by

j udi ci al of

fi ce rs c ar ri ed out by lawe nf or ce m en t of

fi ce rs pr oc ee de d in tw o st ep s. F ir st, the Co urt c onsi de re d w he the r the r ule sho uld

be appl ie d be ca

use it m ight im

prove the perform ance of j udges andm agistrate j udges, and the Court co nc lud ed

that w as not

agoo d e noug h r ea son fo r ap ply ing it . S ee id. a t 91 6–17 , 104 S. Ct. at 3417– 18 (“ [T ] he exclusion ary rule is designed to deter police7

m isc ondu ct

r athe r than to pun ishthe e rr or s of j udge s and m ag istrate s. ”) ; se e al so Il lin ois v. K

ru ll, 480 U . S. 340 , 348 , 107 S . Ct . 116 0, 116 6 ( 1987 ). S ec ond, the Court considered whether, and if so how m uch, application of the exclusion ary rule in that circum stance m ight b e expected to im prove the behavior of law en fo rc em en t of

fi ce rs , and i t c onc lud ed

that any sli ght de te rr en t be ne fi t pr ovi de d by ap ply ing the r

ule w oul d be outw ei ghe d by the he av y

c ost s of e xc lud ing r el ev an t an dm at er i al ev i d en ce . Le o n , 4 6 8 U.S . a t9 2 0

– 2 2 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . a t3 4 1 9

– 2 0 (“W e co nc lud e that the m ar gin al or non ex ist ent be ne fi ts p ro duc ed by sup pr es sin g evidence obtained in objec tively rea sonable reliance on a subsequent ly invalidated se ar chw ar

rant c an not

j ust if y the sub stanti al c ost s of

e xc lus ion . ”) ; se e al so K

ru ll, 480 U . S. a t 34 8, 107 S . Ct . a t 11 66; U nit ed S ta te s v. A cc ar do, 749 F . 2d 1 477, 1480 (11th Cir. 1985) (char acter izing Leon as establishing that the exclusion ary ru le “ rem ai ns vi ab le on ly as a d et erre nt to po li ce m is co nd uc t” ). Ade ca de late r, in A ri zo nav. E vans, 514 U . S. 1, 115 S . Ct . 118 5 ( 1995 ), the Co urt e xte nde d L eo n’ s “ good f ai th e xc ep tio n” to the e xc lus ion ar y r ule to ci rc u m s t an ce s i n wh i ch o ff i ce rs re l y i n g o o dfa i t h o n a c o u rt empl o yee’s represe ntation that a valid war rant existed when, in fact, the warrant has pr ev iou sly

be enqua she d. I d. a t 14 , 115 S . Ct . a t 11 93. T he gov er nm en t c ont en ds that E vans i nvol ve d e sse nti al ly the sam e sit

ua tio n a s th is c as e an d th at the E vans8

decision st anding alone j ustifies the adm issio n of the illegally obtained evid ence he re. W e think, however, that this effort by the governm ent to justify its capture of H er ri ng r ed -h an de d r el ie s onar ed he rr ing . T he S upr em e Co urt i n E vans expressly declined to address whether the exclusionary rule shouldbe applied w he n po lic e pe rs onne l r athe r than c ourt e m plo y ee s are the sourc e of the e rr or , id. at 15 n . 5, 115 S . Ct . a t 11 94 n . 5, the re by dis av ow ing any

de ci sio n onthe iss ue the go ve rn m en t ar gu es th e Co ur t d eci de d. For guidance on this issue we r eturn to Leon. The opin ion in that case ins tr uc ts u s th at

“ [w ] he the r the e xc lus ion ar y sanc tio n is appr opr ia te ly im pose d ina part ic ular ca se . . . m

ust be r es olv ed

by w ei ghi ng the c ost s and b en ef its of pr ev en tin g th e use in the pr ose cu tio n’ s c as e in c hie f of inh er en tly

tr ustw orthy tangi ble e vid en ce . ” 468 U . S. a t 90 6, 104 S . Ct . a t 34 12. Ar ule that de nie s th e j ury acce ss to prob ative evidence “ m ust be caref

ully lim ited to the circum stances in which it will pay

its way by deterring officia l lawle ssness.” G ates, 462 U.S . at 257– 58, 103 S . Ct . a t 23 42. T ha t m eans the e xc lus ion ar y r ule sho uld

onl y be applied to a category

of cases if

it will “ result in appreciable deterr ence. ” U nited St at es v. Janis , 428 U . S. 433 , 454 , 96 S . Ct . 302 1, 303 2 ( 1976 ). Appl ic at ionof the rule is unwarr anted wher e “ [a] ny increm ental deterre nt effec t . . . is uncertain at be st .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cal an dr a, 41 4 U.S. 3 38 , 35 1, 9 4 S . Ct. 6 13 , 62 1 (1 97 4) .9

The possibilit y

that application o f the exclusionary rule in a situation m ay

deter Fourth Am endm ent violatio ns to so m e extent is not enou gh. A lderm an v. United St at es , 394 U . S. 165 , 174 , 89 S . Ct . 961 , 967 ( 1969 ); se e L eo n, 468 U . S. a t 91 0, 104 S. Ct. at 3413. Instead, the test for extending th e exclusionary rule is w hether the costs of doin g so are outweighed by the deterre nt benefits. L eon, 468 U. S. at 91 0, 1 04 S. Ct. at 34 13 . T he “ subs tanti al soc ia l c ost s e xa ct ed by the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule ” ar e w el l known. I d. a t 90 7, 104 S . Ct . a t 34 12. T he S upr em e Co urt ha s “ co nsi ste ntl y re co gni ze d th at

unb en din g a

ppl ic at ionof

the e xc lus ion ar

y sanc tio n . . . w oul d im pede unacceptably

the truth-finding functions o f j udge and jury ,” United State s v. P ay ne r, 447 U . S. 727 , 734 , 100 S . Ct . 243 9, 244 5 ( 1980 ), and i t ha s “ re pe at ed ly em pha siz ed that the r ule ’ s ‘ co stl y

tol l’ upo n tr

uth -s ee kin g and l awe nf

or ce m en t obj ec tiv es pr es en ts a

hig h ob sta cl e fo r tho se ur gin g [ its ] appl ic at ion . ” P a. Bd . of Pr ob. & Paro le v. S co tt, 524 U . S. 357 , 364 –65, 118 S . Ct . 201 4, 202 0 ( 1998 ). F or that r ea son, sup pr es sio n of e vid en ce ha s a lw ay s be enala st r es ort, not af ir st im pu ls e. Hud so n v . Mic hi ga n, _

__U.S. __

_, 1 26 S. Ct. 2 15 9, 2 16 3 (2 00 6) . U nli ke the c ost s of

appl y ing the e xc lus ion ar y r ule , the be ne fi ts o f doi ng s o ar e hard to gauge be ca

use e m pir ic al e vid en ce of

the r ule ’ s de te rr en t e ff

ec t i s difficult, if not im

poss ible, to com e by . See Janis, 428 U. S. at 449–5 3, 96 S. Ct. at10

3030 –31. E ve n if

w e co uld m ea sur e or

a ppr oxi m at e an y

de te rr en t e ff

ec t tha t the ex cl usi onary

r ule pr oduc es , in or de r to v al ue that e ff ec t w e m ust ide nti fy the int en de d targ et

of the de te rr en ce . I d. a t 44 8, 96 S . Ct . a t 30 29 ( “ Ine va luatin g th e ne ed f or ade te rr en t sanc tio n, one m ust f ir st i de nti fy

tho se w ho are to be de te rr ed . ”) . I t i s th is que sti on tha t the f ir st p ar t of L eo n and n earl y

a ll of E vans addresses. S ee L eon, 468 U. S. at 913–1 7, 104 S. Ct. at 3415– 18; Evans, 514 U. S. at 11– 17, 115 S . Ct . a t 11 91–9 4. T he answ er that bo th c as es giv e is tha t the ex cl usi onary

r ule is de sig ne d to de te r pol ic e m isc ondu ct , r athe r than to pun ishthe er ro rs of oth er s ( in those c as es , j udi ci al m ag istrate s and c ourt c le rk s) . L eo n, 468 U . S. a t 91 6, 104 S . Ct . a t 34 17; E vans, 514 U . S. a t 11 , 115 S . Ct . a t 11 91. O ur de ci sio ns g ive the sam e an sw er . S ee , e . g. , U nit ed S ta te s v. Mart in, 297 F . 3d 1 308, 1313 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ; A cc ar do, 749 F . 2d at 14 80. Mi sc ondu ct by oth er a ct or s is a pr ope r targ et

of the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule onl y ins of ar a s th ose oth er s are “ ad

j unc ts t o the lawe nf

or ce m en t t eam . ” E vans, 514 U . S. a t 15 , 115 S . Ct . a t 11 93. T o sum up, our r ev ie wof

L eo n id en tif

ie s th re e co ndi tio ns tha t m ust oc cur to w ar rant a ppl ic at ionof

the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule . F ir st, the re m

ust be m isc ondu ct

by the police or by

adj uncts to th e lawenforce m ent team . Id. at 913– 17, 104 S. C t. atIn E va ns , th e Sup re me Court

le ft op e n th e po ssi bil ity

tha t th e on ly mis c on du c t whic h is 1 rele vant to an ana ly sis of the exclusionary rule’s de terre nt effe ct is that of police of fice rs, as d is ti n gu is h e d

f r o m n o n - o f

f ic e r p o li c e p e r s o nn e l. 5 1 4 U . S. at 1 5 n . 5 , 1 1 5 S. Ct . at 1 1 9 4 n . 5 . We assume aw ay

that issue beca

use it does not matter to our de cision in this case.

11 3415 –18. S ec ond, appl ic at ionof the r ule m ust r es ult in ap pr ec ia

ble de te rr en ce of 1 t h at m i s co n du ct . Id . a t9 0 9 , 1 0 4 S. Ct . a t3 4 1 3 . F i n al l y, th e b en ef i t s o f t h e ru l e’s ap pli catio n m

ust not outw ei gh i ts c ost s. I d. a t 91 0, 104 S . Ct . a t 34 13.

B. A s f or the f ir st c ondi tio n, “ [t ] he de te rr en t purp ose of the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule ne ce ssari ly

a ssum es that the pol ic e ha ve e nga ge d inw ill fu l, or a t the ve ry

le as t ne gli ge nt, c ondu ct

w hic h ha s de pr ive d th e de fe ndant o f som e ri ght . ” Mi ch igan v. T uc ke r, 417 U . S. 433 , 447 , 94 S . Ct . 235 7, 236 5 ( 1974 ). T he c ondu ct in que sti on in this c as e is the f

ai lur e of som eo ne ins ide the D al e Co unty S he ri ff ’ s O ff ic e to record in that departm ent’ s records the fa ct that the arr est warrant f or He rring had be enr ec al le d or

r es ci nde d by

the c ourt or

by the c le rk ’ s of

fi ce . T ha t f

ai lur e to br ing the r ec or ds u

p to da te is “ at

the ve ry le as t ne gli ge nt. ” S ee id. W e w ill as sum e fo r pr es en t purp ose s th at the ne gli ge nt a ct or , w ho i s un ide nti fi ed in the re co rd , is ana dj unc t t o lawe nf or ce m en t i n D al e Co unty and i s to be tr eate d f

or pur pose s of the e xc lus ion ar

y r ule a s apol ic e of

fi ce r. S ee sup ra

not e 1. A s f or the se co nd c onsi de ratio n inde ci din g w he the r to a ppl y the12

exclusion ary

rule to these circ um stances, doing so will not d eter bad r ecord ke ep ing to an y

appr ec ia ble e xte nt, if

a t a ll. T he re are se ve ra l r ea sons f or thi s. F or one thi ng, the c ondu ct

in que sti on i s ane gli ge nt f ai lur e to a ct , not

ade lib er at e or ta ct ic al c hoi ce to ac t. T he re is no r ea son to b el ie ve that any one in the D al e Co unty Sheriff ’ s Of fice w eighed the pos sible ram ifications of being n egligent and d ecided to be care less in record keeping. D eterr ents work best wher e the targete d condu ct results from

conscious decision m aking, because only if the decision m aker co ns id ers th e p os si bl e res ul ts of h er ac ti on s ca n s he be de te rred . Another re ason that exclud ing evid ence r esulting from the negligent failure to u pda te r ec or ds i s un lik el y

to re duc e to any

sig nif ic an t e xte nt tha t ty

pe of ne gli ge nc e is tha t the re are a lr ea dy abund an t i nc en tiv es f

or ke ep ing r ec or ds curr en t. F ir st, the re is the inh er en t va lue of a cc ur at e re co rd -k ee pin g to e ff ec tiv e police investi gation. Inacc urate and outdated inform ation in p olice files is j ust as li ke ly, if n ot m or e li ke ly, to hi nd er p ol ic e in ve st ig at io ns as i t i s t o a idth em . Se co nd, and r el at ed

to the f ir st r ea son, the re is the pos sib ili ty of r ep ri m an d or oth er j ob d isc ipl ine f

or c ar el es sne ss i n r ec or d ke ep ing . T hir d, the re is the poss ibilityof civil liabilityif the fa ilure to keep records updated results in illegal ar re sts or oth er inj ur y . F our th, the re is the r isk

that the de partm en t whe re the re co rd s are not

ke pt u p to da te w ill have r el ev an t e vid en ce e xc lud ed f ro m one of13

it s o wn ca se s as a res ul t. T he re is al so the uni que c ir cum stanc e he re that the e xc lus ion ar y sanc tio n w oul d be le vie d no t i n ac as e br ough t by of fi ce rs of the de partm ent tha t w as gui lty of the ne gli ge nt r ec or d ke ep ing , but ins te ad it w oul d sc utt le ac as e br ough t by of fi ce rs of adif fe re nt d ep ar

tm en t i n anothe r co unty , one w hose of fi ce rs and pe rs onne l w er e en tir el y

inn oc en t of

any w ro ngdo ing or

c ar el es sne ss. W e do n ot m ean to sug ge st tha t D al e Co unty lawe nf or ce m en t a ge nc ie s are not int er es te d in the successful prosecution of crim e througho ut the state, but their prim ary re spon sib ili ty

and i nte re st l ie s inthe ir

ow n c as es . H opi ng t o ga in a be ne fi ci al de te rr en t e ff

ec t onD al e Co unty

pe rs onne l by

e xc lud ing e vid en ce in a ca se br ough t by Co ff ee Co unty

of fi ce rs w oul d be li ke te lli ng a stu de nt tha t i f he ski ps s ch ool one of his c la ssm at es w ill be pun ish ed . T he stu de nt m ay not e xa ct ly r el ishthe pr ospe ct of c au sin g anothe r to s uf

fe r, but hum anna tur e be ing w ha t i t i s, he is unl ike ly to fe ar that pr ospe ct

a s m uc h a s he w oul d hi s own su ff er ing . F or

a ll of the se r ea sons , w e ar e co nvi nc ed that this is one of

tho se sit ua tio ns whe re “ [a ] ny inc re m en ta l de te rr en t e ff

ec t whic h m igh t be a ch ie ve d by e xte ndi ng the r

ule . . . is unc er ta in at be st, ” Ca landr a, 414 U . S. at 34 8, 94 S . Ct . a t 62 0, w he re the be ne fi ts of sup pr es sio n w oul d be “ m ar gin al or non ex ist en t, ” L eo n, 468 U . S. a t 92 0–22 , 104 S. Ct . a t 34 20, and whe re the e xc lus ion ar y r ule w oul d no t “pay

it s w ay by14

de te rri ng off

ic ia l l awle ss ne ss ,” Gate s, 4 62 U.S. at 2 57 –5 8, 1 03 S. Ct. at 23 42 . T ur nin g to the thi rd

L eo n c ondi tio n, any

m ini m al de te rr en ce that m igh t re sul t f ro m appl y ing the e xc lus ion ar y r ule in the se c ir cum stanc es w oul d no t outw ei gh the he av y

c ost of e xc lud ing oth er

w ise a dm iss ibl e an d hi ghl y pr oba tiv e ev ide nc e. L eo n, 468 U . S. a t 91 0, 104 S . Ct . a t 34 13. Inc los ing , w e not e, a s th e Su pr em e Co urt di d inL eo n, that the te st f or re as ona ble pol ic e co nduc t i s ob

j ec tiv e. 468 U . S. a t 91 9 n. 20, 104 S . Ct . a t 34 19 n. 20. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound that “ the re [ w as ] no c re dib le e vid en ce of r out ine pr obl em s w ithdis posi ng o f re ca lle d w ar rants ” an d up da tin g r ec or ds i n D al e Co un ty, an d Herrin g d oe s n ot co nt es t t ha t fi nd in g. If f aulty rec ord-keeping were to b ec om e en de m ic in that c ounty , how ev er , of fi ce rs in Co ff

ee Co unty

m igh t have a dif fi cu lt tim e es ta

bli shi ng tha t the ir

r el ianc e on r ec or ds f

ro m the ir ne ighbor ing countywa s objectively

rea sonable. T he goodfaith exception to the exclusio nary ru le doe s no t sh el te r ev ide nc e that w as obt ai ne d inan un co nst itu tio na l arr es t or search that w as based on objectively unreliable inform ation. Se e E vans, 514 U. S. at17 , 11 5 S . Ct. at 11 94 –9 5 (O’Co nn or , J., co nc urrin g) . AFFIRMED.