Commentary
Evidence From Database Errors Can Be Used In Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided, in a 5-4 vote, that police can use evidence obtained in searches resulting from erroneous information in databases, as long as the error was a result of negligence -- not "systemic errors or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."The U.S. Supreme Court has decided, in a 5-4 vote, that police can use evidence obtained in searches resulting from erroneous information in databases, as long as the error was a result of negligence -- not "systemic errors or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements."In Herring v. United States, the court knocks down an argument that evidence obtained during illegal searches and arrests should be thrown out because it violates the Fourth Amendment. The majority ruled that, as long as the arrest wasn't reckless or deliberate, related evidence could be used.
Bennie Dean Herring was arrested while trying to retrieve something from his truck, which an Alabama sheriff had impounded. Members of the Coffee County Sheriff's Department mistakenly believed there was a warrant out for Herring and arrested him. During the arrest, they found that Herring possessed an illegal gun and methamphetamine.
More Government Insights
White Papers
- Creating the Enterprise-Class Tablet Environment - by Yankee Group
- Red Alert: Why Tablet Security Matters - by BlackBerry
Reports
More >>Webcasts
- Maximize ROI with Database Consolidation onto Private Clouds
- Effective IT Inventory and Asset Management: From Quagmire to Quick Fix
Herring tried to fight gun and drug possession charges, saying the gun and drugs were found during an arrest that violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to have warrants for arrests and probable cause for search and seizure.
The Supreme Court decision, rejecting Herring's argument, states that the arrest was not in deliberate violation of Herring's rights.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in the dissent that the majority underestimated "the need for a forceful exclusionary rule and the gravity of record-keeping errors" in law enforcement.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center and OpenTheGovernment.org criticized the decision as well.
"Given the increase in the breadth and influence of electronic databases used by the criminal justice system, requiring law enforcement personnel to keep accurate records is perfectly reasonable," Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, said in a statement. "On the other hand, the Court's failure to ensure law enforcement has an accuracy obligation threatens civil liberties by undermining the right against unreasonable search and seizure."
Related Reading
| To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy. | |
|
|
T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting! |
Subscribe to RSSResource Links
This Week's Issue
Technology Whitepapers
- Mobile BI: Actionable Intelligence for the Agile Enterprise
- Creating the Enterprise-Class Tablet Environment - by Yankee Group
- How To Regain IT Control In An Increasingly Mobile World - by BlackBerry
- Red Alert: Why Tablet Security Matters - by BlackBerry
- New Visual and Wizard-Driven Paradigms for Exploring Data and Developing Analytic Workflows
Featured Whitepaper
In this white paper, Tripwire discusses strategies for defending cyber threats that include monitoring security status of systems throughout the enterprise, detecting threats to sensitive data, and responding to threats in real-time.
Learn More













