Supreme Court rules no evidence suppression required for police negligence

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] decided two cases Wednesday. The Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in Herring v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that evidence seized during a search incident to an arrest does not have to be suppressed when the sole premise for the arrest was information later found to be negligently provided by another law enforcement agency. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court. Roberts held:

[In circumstances where] an officer reasonably believes there is an out-standing arrest warrant, but that belief turns out to be wrong because of a negligent bookkeeping error by an-other police employee ... the jury should not be barred from considering all the evidence.
Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer joined. Ginsburg warned that, "the 'most serious impact' of the Court's holding will be on innocent persons 'wrongfully arrested based on erroneous information [carelessly maintained] in a computer data base.'" Breyer also filed a separate dissent, in which Souter joined. The ruling affirms the decision [opinion, PDF] of the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The Court also ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in Chambers v. United States [Cornell LII backgrounder; JURIST report] that it is not unconstitutional for a convict to be sentenced to consecutive rather than concurrent terms for burglary and sex offenses when a judge rather than a jury determined that the crimes arose out of separate offenses. Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reasoned:
The jury-trial right is best honored through a "principled rationale" that applies the rule of the Apprendi cases "within the central sphere of their concern." Our disposition today — upholding an Oregon statute that assigns to judges a decision that has not traditionally belonged to the jury — is faithful to that aim. [citations omitted]
Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices David Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice John Roberts joined. Scalia wrote:
The rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey is clear: Any fact — other than that of a prior conviction — that increases the maximum punishment to which a defendant may be sentenced must be admitted by the defendant or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. Oregon’s sentencing scheme allows judges rather than juries to find the facts necessary to commit defendants to longer prison sentences, and thus directly contradicts what we held eight years ago and have reaffirmed several times since.
The decision reverses the ruling [opinion text] of the Oregon Supreme Court.


 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.