Document: 129 S. Ct. 695 (2009) Bennie Dean HERRING, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES. No. 07-513. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 7, 2008. Decided January 14, 2009. *697 Pamela Karlan, for petitioner. Michael R. Dreeben, respondent. Ronald W. Wise, Montgomery, AL, Thomas C. Goldstein, Akin, Gump, Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Counsel Record, Stanford Law School, Court, Litigation Clinic, Stanford, CA, Amy Howe, Kevin K. Russell, Howe P.C., Bethesda, MD, Gregory G. Garre, Acting Solicitor General, Matthew Friedrich, Assistant Attorney *698 Deputy Toby J. Heytens, to the Deborah Watson, Attorney, Department Justice, D.C., Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered opinion Court. The Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures," this usually requires police have probable cause or a warrant before making an arrest. What if officer reasonably believes there is outstanding arrest warrant, but that belief turns out be wrong because negligent bookkeeping error by another employee? parties here agree ensuing still violation Amendment, dispute whether contraband found during search incident must excluded in later prosecution. Our cases establish such suppression not automatic consequence violation. Instead, question on culpability potential exclusion deter wrongful conduct. Here was result isolated negligence attenuated from We hold these circumstances jury should barred considering all evidence. I On July 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned Herring had driven Coffee County Sheriff's retrieve something his impounded truck. no stranger law enforcement, asked county's clerk, Sandy Pope, check any warrants Herring's When she none, Pope with Sharon Morgan, her counterpart neighboring Dale County. After checking County's computer database, Morgan replied active failure appear felony charge. relayed information fax over copy as confirmation. deputy followed he left impound lot, pulled him over, arrested him. A revealed methamphetamine pocket, pistol (which felon could possess) vehicle. App. 17-23. There had, however, been mistake about warrant. sheriff's records are supposed correspond actual warrants, which office also maintains. But when went files unable find it. She called court clerk recalled five months earlier. Normally clerk's judge's chambers calls who enters database disposes physical copy. For whatever reason, recall did database. immediately alert mixup, contacted secure radio. This unfolded 10 15 minutes, already gun drugs, just few hundred yards office. Id., at 26, 35-42, 54-55. *699 indicted District Middle Alabama illegally possessing violations 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) 21 844(a). He moved suppress evidence ground initial illegal rescinded. Magistrate Judge recommended denying motion arresting officers acted good-faith outstanding. Thus, even were violation, "no reason believe application exclusionary rule would occurrence future mistakes." 70. adopted Judge's recommendation, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (2005), Appeals Eleventh Circuit affirmed, 492 F.3d 1212 (2007). "were entirely innocent wrongdoing carelessness." id., 1218. assumed whoever failed update enforcement official, noted "the conduct [wa]s act, deliberate tactical choice act." Ibid. Because merely arrest, concluded benefit suppressing "would marginal nonexistent," ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted), therefore admissible under States Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 3405 (1984). Other courts required obtained through similar errors, e.g., Hoay State, 348 Ark. 80, 86-87, 71 S.W.3d 573, 577 (2002), so we granted petition certiorari resolve conflict, 552 ___, 128 1221, 170 Ed. 57 (2008). now affirm Circuit's judgment. II probable-cause determination based reasonable mistaken assumptions, person subjected seizure has necessarily victim constitutional very phrase "probable cause" confirms does demand possible precision. And can traced state actor some other source may bear analysis. purposes deciding case, accept parties' assumption issue applied. protects "[t]he right people their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable "contains provision expressly precluding use its commands," Arizona Evans, 514 1, 10, 115 1185, 131 34 (1995). Nonetheless, our decisions that, applicable, improperly trial. See, Weeks States, 232 383, 398, 341, 58 652 (1914). stated judicially created "designed safeguard rights generally deterrent effect." Calandra, 414 338, 348, 94 613, 38 561 (1974). In analyzing applicability rule, Leon admonished consider actions involved. U.S., 923, n. 24, ("It necessary objective *700 reasonableness, only eventually executed originally it provided material determination"). nothing improper. Indeed, noticed quickly requested faxed confirmation concluded, somebody updated reflect negligent, reckless deliberate. F.3d, 1218.[1] That fact crucial holding enough itself require extreme sanction exclusion." supra, 916, 3405. B 1. occurredi.e., unreasonabledoes mean applies. Illinois Gates, 462 213, 223, 103 2317, 76 527 (1983). "has always last resort, first impulse," Hudson Michigan, 547 586, 591, 126 2159, 165 56 (2006), precedents important principles constrain rule. First, individual applies where "`result[s] appreciable deterrence.'" 909, (quoting Janis, 428 433, 454, 96 3021, 49 1046 (1976)). repeatedly rejected argument 905-906, 3405; 13-14; Pennsylvania Bd. Probation Parole Scott, 524 357, 363, 118 2014, 141 344 (1998). Instead focused efficacy deterring future. See 347-355, 613; Stone Powell, 465, 486, 3037, 1067 (1976).[2] addition, benefits deterrence outweigh costs. 910, "We never suggested apply every circumstance might provide deterrence." 368, 2014. "[T]o extent incremental deterrent, weighed [its] substantial social costs." Krull, 480 340, *701 352-353, 107 1160, 364 (1987) omitted). principal cost applying is, course, letting guilty possibly dangerous defendants go freesomething "offends basic concepts criminal justice system." 908, "[T]he rule's costly toll upon truth-seeking objectives presents high obstacle those urging application." 364-365, 2014 omitted); see Havens, 446 620, 626-627, 100 1912, 64 559 (1980); Payner, 447 727, 734, 2439, 65 (1980). These reflected Leon: act invalid lack cause, "in objectively reliance" subsequently invalidated 922, (perhaps confusingly) reliance "good faith." Ibid., 23, companion Massachusetts Sheppard, 981, 3424, 82 737 (1984), held judge forgot make "clerical corrections" 991, 3424. Shortly thereafter extended holdings warrantless administrative performed statute declared unconstitutional. 349-350, 1160. Finally, 34, applied relied court's made judicial employee give rise three reasons: crafted curb rather than misconduct; employees unlikely try subvert Amendment; "most important, [was] basis believing [those] circumstances" significant effect errors. 15. 1185. Evans unresolved "whether suppressed personnel responsible error,"[3] argued State 16, 5, one confront. 2. justified varies As said "an assessment flagrancy misconduct constitutes step calculus" 911, Similarly, Krull elaborated "evidence `only knowledge, properly charged unconstitutional Amendment.'" 348-349, 1160 Peltier, *702 422 531, 542, 95 2313, 45 374 (1975)). Anticipating exception Friendly wrote beneficent aim sufficiently accomplished practice ... outlawing flagrant rights." Bill Rights Code Criminal Procedure, 53 Calif. L.Rev. 929, 953 (1965) (footnotes Brown Illinois, 590, 610-611, 2254, 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring part) ("[T]he value most likely effective" "official flagrantly abusive rights"). abuses gave featured intentional patently Weeks, 652, foundational broken into defendant's home (using key shown them neighbor), confiscated incriminating then returned again Marshal confiscate more. 386, 341. Not they required, gotten tried. They lacking sworn particularized "not order procedure." 393-394, Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 40 182, 319 (1920), petitioner relies, similar; federal officials "without shadow authority" defendants' "made clean sweep" paper find. 390, 182. Even Government seemed acknowledge "seizure outrage." 391, Equally Mapp Ohio, 367 643, 81 1684, 6 1081 (1961), overruled Wolf Colorado, 338 25, 69 1359, 93 1782 (1949), Officers forced open door Ms. Mapp's house, kept lawyer entering, brandished what false handcuffs canvassed house obscenity. 644-645, 1684. Friendly, 953, 127 situation Mapp" "flagrant An arises nonrecurring thus far removed core concerns led us adopt place. since exclude more culpable this. 3. To trigger meaningfully it, worth price paid system. laid cases, serves deliberate, reckless, grossly conduct, recurring systemic negligence. case level.[4] *703 decision Franks Delaware, 438 154, 98 2674, 667 (1978), provides analogy. Cf. 914, Franks, obtaining level let alone meet stringent test triggering Constitution allowed defendants, circumstances, "to challenge truthfulness factual statements affidavit supporting warrant," after issued. 155-156, 2674. If determination, "voided." relevant: "There allegations falsehood disregard truth," "[a]llegations insufficient." 171, Both concern police. Under miscommunications course acquiring do rescind render invalid. Here, occurred different contextafter issued recalledbut excluding obtained. pertinent analysis objective, "inquiry subjective awareness officers," Reply Brief Petitioner 4-5. post, 710, 7 (GINSBURG, dissenting). "our inquiry confined ascertainable well trained known illegal" light "all circumstances." frequently include particular officer's knowledge experience, looks Ornelas 517 690, 699-700, 116 1657, 134 911 (1996), intent, Whren 806, 812-813, 1769, 135 89 (1996). 4. suggest recordkeeping errors immune exclusion. nonexistent produced cannot justify costs same true maintaining system, knowingly entries lay groundwork arrests, certainly much explaining "obtain `bare bones' rely colleagues ignorant *704 search." (citing Whiteley Warden, Wyo. Penitentiary, 401 560, 568, 91 1031, 28 306 (1971)). Petitioner's fears will departments deliberately keep ignorant, 37-39, unfounded. dissent adverts unreliability number databases relevant case. Post, 708-709. demonstrated, unreliable 17, 1185 (O'Connor, concurring) ("Surely system routinely leads arrests" (second emphasis added)); Hudson, 604, 2159 (KENNEDY, ("If widespread pattern grave concern" (emphasis added)). routine widespread. Officer testified 27, both remember miscommunication ever happening watch, 33, 61-62. less reasonable. 15, (similar "every four years"). showings here, 2d, 1292,[5] correct denial suppress. * claim automatically triggers squared underlying explained cases. repeated harm 909-910, 3405, conclude mistakes described requirements, "pay way." 907-908, 6, "go free constable blundered." People Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (1926) (opinion Cardozo, J.). judgment affirmed. It ordered. GINSBURG, whom STEVENS, SOUTER, BREYER join, dissenting. arrested, *705 although him, lacked engaged activity. violated secure... seizures." determined, contend otherwise. redress placing government position search. strongly encourages compliance holds inapplicable careless policenot misconductaccounts constrict domain dispositive case: "[I]f power discourage [police] [the kind issue], rule." 22-23, (1995) (STEVENS, unlawful contested pocket serious impact" Court's persons "wrongfully erroneous [carelessly maintained] data base." 22, February apparently error. 3, 1 63). Department, changes. 39-40, 43, 45. member Department identified hard Clerk's office, Department's show recalled. 60. entry remained undetected, months. afternoon came belongings vehicle lot. 17. Anderson, day, knew prior interactions: told district attorney, among others, suspicion involved killing local teenager, pursued get drop accusations. 63-64. Informed impoundment 18. 19. call inquire there. Upon receiving Pope's phone call, checked recounted, preserved Morgan's showedincorrectlyan 41. misinformation ibid., 35. Armed report existed, promptly *706 minutes detection contest, "failure bring [Dale Department] up date `at least negligent.'" 1212, 1217 (C.A.11 2007) Michigan Tucker, 417 447, 2357, 41 182 (1974)). uncontested rights. sole presented, therefore, suppressed.[1] unwarranted "core concerns" raised isolated, Ante, 702, 704.[2] my view, underestimates need forceful gravity enforcement. states right, ante, 700; rather, simply remedy applicable outweighs 704. 702 negligence."). discussion invokes view famously renowned jurists Henry Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. Over 80 years ago, seated New York Appeals, commented critically yet exacted too 24-25, 588-589 (1926). words often quoted, Cardozo questioned N.E., 587. Cardozo's query. "The exclusion," wrote, "is experience demonstrated effective method violating Constitution." 951 (1965). thought excessive, "blundered"when committed technical on-the-spot judgment, 952, "slight unintentional miscalculation," 953. recounts, improprieties "sufficiently accomplished" *707 confining Ibid.; 702. Others "a majestic conception" adjunct, 18, Protective fundamental "right effects," constraint sovereign, agents." Stewart, Road Ohio Beyond: Origins, Development Future Exclusionary Rule Search-and-Seizure Cases, 83 Colum. 1365 share vision Amendment. ensure that" Amendment's prohibitions "are observed fact." 1389; Kamisar, Does (Did) (Should) Rest "Principled Basis" Rather Than "Empirical Proposition"? 16 Creighton 565, 600 service essential auxiliary earlier inclined two inseparable. 568-569, (1971). Olmstead 277 438, 469-471, 48 564, 72 944 (1928) (Holmes, dissenting); 477-479, 483-485, 564 (Brandeis, Beyond doubt, main deterto compel respect guaranty effectively available wayby removing incentive it." Elkins 206, 217, 1437, 4 1669 (1960). purposes: "enabl[es] judiciary avoid taint partnership official lawlessness," "assur[es] peopleall victims conductthat profit lawless behavior, minimizing risk seriously undermining popular trust government." (1974) (Brennan, Terry 392 88 1868, 20 889 (1968) ("A admitting trial, recognize, legitimizing evidence, while withholds imprimatur."); 604 (a aid denied `in maintain [and] preserve process contamination'" Olmstead, 484, dissenting)). bears emphasis, (1961) (noting obvious futility relegating protection remedies"); Amsterdam, Perspectives Minn. 349, 360 (describing primary instrument enforcing [F]ourth [A]mendment"). Civil liability lie vast majority [A]mendment violationsthe frequent infringements motivated commendable zeal, condemnable malice." L.Rev., 1389. prosecutions sanctions offending injunctive relief *708 farther cry. 1386-1388. III maintains scant 704 disagree. suggests, capable careless, reckless. 703. suggestion runs counter premise tort lawthat negligence, i.e., due care, creates greater care. acknowledges. 21; cf. 12. hardly means minimal value. "Just respondeat superior employers supervise employees' [more carefully], policymakers systems managers monitor performance install employed operate systems." 29, Consider impact observed, 698, record indicates electronic connection between located basement building. recalled, "many access th[e] warrants," 60, "two places" department houses 41, return manually reflects accuracy, remove discovered until sought pursue later. Is altogether take further precautions integrity database? otherwise." LaFave, Search Seizure 1.8(e), p. 313 (4th ed.2004). imposes? paramount importance accurate answer yes, next explain why, particularly strong suppression. Electronic form nervous contemporary operations. recent years, breadth influence dramatically expanded. Police today National Crime Information Center (NCIC), terrorist watchlists, Federal Government's eligibility various commercial databases. Privacy (EPIC) et al. Amicus Curiae 6. Moreover, *709 actively expanding sharing jurisdictions. 8-13. result, increasing supply within easy reach. 36-37. stemming slim. amici warn insufficiently monitored date. EPIC 13-28. reports describe, example, flaws NCIC databases,[3] watchlist databases,[4] associated employment verification system.[5] Inaccuracies expansive, interconnected collections raise liberty. offense dignity citizen handcuffed, searched public street bureaucrat base" evocative general outraged authors Rights. C assures "exclusion justified" arrests." concession little comfort. restricting leaves Herring, others like 700-701. assertion 42 1983. sheltered qualified immunity, Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 102 2727, 73 396 (1982), liable acts employees, Monell City Dept. Social Servs., 436 658, 2018, 611 (1978). identifying impossible. Second, doubt forces possess sufficient incentives up-to-date records. argues desire send arrests unnecessarily, consume resources place danger. facts fit description motivation. wanted consulted legitimate predisposition. 17-19.[6] *710 Third, afoot, assurance empty promise: How impecunious defendant showing? entitled discovery (and necessary, audit databases), Tr. Oral Arg. 57-58, imposed considerable burden enforcement.[7] IV Negligent threaten liberty, susceptible remedied means. Such present occasion erode needed real; guarantee carry chimera." 361, 613 keeping concerns," attended reasons stated, reverse Circuit. BREYER, SOUTER joins, GINSBURG join dissent. write separately note additional factor important. (1995), long recordkeeping. 1185; 16-17, concurring). rationale premised distinction several recognizing distinction. historically designed misconduct, employees." added). ignore lawlessness actors 14-15, recognized [would] informing quashed. clerks adjuncts team competitive enterprise ferreting crime, stake outcome prosecutions." (citation Taken together, why treated differently ones. faith" similarly legislatures. *711 (1984) (police magistrate's issuance warrant); (same); statute's constitutionality). Distinguishing ones consistent precedent, easier administer THE CHIEF JUSTICE's case-by-case, multifactored degree culpability. results clear line, recognition line support GINSBURG's NOTES [1] At point opinion, "`at negligent,'" (2007) paragraph, clarified act," presented treats "negligen[t]" one, Pet. Cert. i; Opposition (I), briefed basis. [2] champions describes "`a conception' rule," 707 dissenting)), doing so. Majestic not, reject conception, see, 921, 677 perhaps relies almost exclusively previous dissents [3] BREYER's "premised errors," 710 (dissenting opinion). Were decision, carefully leave unresolved. viewed presaging noteworthy dissent's regards determinative instead "artificial." [4] quarrel "liability negligence... care," 708, effect. "be `substantial rule,'" 907, 3405), cost. [5] notes hearing testifiedapparently confusionthat "[s]everal times." 706, 2 17a). realized misspoken, emphatically corrected record. Noting this, "Morgan's `several times' statement confusing essentially unhelpful," credible problems disposing warrants." 1292. supported credited 1219, deference. inconsequential notes, "we involved." 699. how "isolated" asked: "[H]ow many times you problems, communicating responded: "Several 17a Bureau Statistics, P. Brien, Improving Access Integrity History Records, NCJ 200581 (July 2005), http://www. ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iaichr.pdf (All Internet materials visited Jan. 12, 2009, included Clerk file.). Office Inspector Audit Terrorist Watchlist Nomination Processes, Rep. 08-16 (Mar.2008), usdoj.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0816/final.pdf. Security Admin., Congressional Response Report: Accuracy Administration's Numident File, A-08-06-26100 (Dec.2006), http://www.ssa.gov/ oig/ADOBEPDF/A-08-06-26100.pdf. [6] asserted become "professional" external violations. 24-25; 598-599, (2006). professionalism sign efficacynot superfluity. [7] squares focus mental 703;

Category: 0