Herring v. United States and the Future of the Exclusionary Rule

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court decided Herring v. United States, no. 07-513, a case that raises interesting questions about the future of the exclusionary rule.  An officer learned that the eventual defendant, Herring, was at the impound lot, retrieving items from his impounded truck.  The officer was apparently familiar with Herring, and called the county's warrant clerk to see if Herring had any outstanding warrants.  He didn't.  The officer then asked the clerk to check with the warrant clerk in the next county over.  That clerk said that Herring did have a warrant outstanding.  Based on that information, the officer pulled over Herring's vehicle, arrested him, and found drugs on his person and a gun in his vehicle.  However, shortly after arrest, the warrant clerk in the neighboring county realized that the warrant against Herring had been recalled.  Herring was charged with federal drug and firearm offenses, and he moved to suppress, arguing that he had been arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment because there was no valid warrant, nor any other basis for the arrest. The government did not argue that the arrest was legal, but contended that the exclusionary rule should not apply because the officer acted in good faith and applying the exclusionary rule under these circumstances would be unlikely to deter the conduct that led to the arrest, i.e., the negligent record-keeping by the neighboring county.  The lower courts agreed, and the Supreme Court affirmed 5-4, with the majority opinion written by Chief [...]