A decision to watchIn 2004 a man named Bennie Herring went to a police impound impound v. 1) to collect funds, in addition to installment payments, from a person who owes a debt secured by property, and place them in a special account to pay property taxes and insurance when due. yard in Alabama to retrieve possessions from his truck. Police ran a check on him — he was a well-known felon An individual who commits a crime of a serious nature, such as Burglary or murder. A person who commits a felony. felon n. a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison. — and they found an arrest warrant for him. Police arrested him and discovered methamphetamine and a pistol on him. But after the arrest, officers learned there was a mistake — the warrant had been withdrawn, but a computer database hadn’t been updated. Herring was prosecuted on the drug and gun charges. He was convicted and sent to prison for 27 months. He appealed, arguing the arrest violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure unreasonable search and seizure n. search of an individual or his/her premises (including an automobile) and/or seizure of evidence found in such a search by a law enforcement officer without a search warrant and without "probable cause" to believe evidence of a . His attorneys pointed to the exclusionary rule exclusionary rule In U.S. law, the principle that evidence seized by police in violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure may not be used against a criminal defendant at trial. , which bars evidence seized in an illegal search from being used in court. In a 5-4 decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Herring’s conviction. In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said “bookkeeping” errors or “isolated negligence” by the police shouldn’t necessarily exclude evidence. The danger, Roberts wrote, “is, of course, letting guilty and possibly dangerous defendants go free.” We certainly understand the court’s view that technical matters shouldn’t free dangerous criminals from prosecution. Our concern, though, is this ruling could create a slippery slope 'slippery slope' Medical ethics An ethical continuum or 'slope,' the impact of which has been incompletely explored, and which itself raises moral questions that are even more on the ethical 'edge' than the original issue and be used to trample Fourth Amendment rights. The dissenting justices expressed the legitimate concern that without tough enforcement of the amendment, police could become negligent or reckless. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15 1933, Brooklyn, New York) is an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Having spent 13 years as a federal judge, but not being a career jurist, she is unique as a Supreme Court justice, having spent the majority of her career as an said the result could be innocent people “wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information.” Judges should keep that in mind as they apply this decision. Police shouldn’t have carte blanche to ignore the Fourth Amendment. 
|
|
||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion