Skip to main content
Article
What Herring Hath Wrought: An Analysis of Post-Herring Cases in the Federal Courts
American Journal of Criminal Law (2011)
  • Claire A. Nolasco, Sam Houston State University
Abstract
The U.S. Supreme Court requires the exclusion of evidence obtained by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. The rule aims to deter police misconduct in search and seizure cases at both the federal and state level. Subsequent court decisions have allowed for various exceptions to the exclusionary rule, including instances where police mistakes were made in good faith and are "the result of isolated negligence attenuated from the search" rather than "systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements" (Herring v. United States, 2009, p. 698). The Herring good faith exception to the exclusionary rule grants courts considerable discretion in allowing production of evidence obtained by law enforcement contrary to the proscription of the Fourth Amendment. This paper: (1) analyzes the doctrine of good faith as interpreted by the federal circuit and district courts after Herring; (2) classifies police activities that have been construed as constituting good faith; and (3) indicates how law enforcement can ensure that evidence obtained during search and seizure operations are not covered by the exclusionary rule.
Keywords
  • Good Faith Doctrine,
  • Good Faith,
  • Exclusionary Rule,
  • Search and Seizure
Publication Date
Spring 2011
Citation Information
Claire A. Nolasco. "What Herring Hath Wrought: An Analysis of Post-Herring Cases in the Federal Courts" American Journal of Criminal Law Vol. 38 (2011)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/claire_nolasco/2/