Spring Break
Column: Sinapi's Spread
America's war on drugs and protection of civil rights
Anthony Sinapi and John Renzi
Issue date: 2/5/09 Section: Editorial/Opinion
02/05/09 - In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court, a court intended to uphold and protect the Constitution and the rights afforded to all citizens therein, ruled in favor of allowing unlawfully obtained evidence to be used against a defendant standing trial.
In July 2004, Bennie Dean Herring arrived in a pickup truck at the Coffee County, Ala., Sheriff's Office to check on the status of an impounded vehicle. Upon arriving, Herring was recognized by the county investigator, Mark Anderson, who quickly checked for any outstanding warrants against Herring. A warrant clerk in neighboring Dale County confirmed that there was a warrant for Herring's arrest for failing to appear in court on a felony charge. Acting quickly, Mark Anderson arrested Herring, discovering methamphetamine and an unregistered pistol inside the truck. Soon after, however, the warrant clerk contacted Anderson, informing him that a mistake had been made and the warrant for Herring had been rescinded, thus rendering the search and seizure illegal.
In Herring's subsequent trial, the judge ruled that the prosecution would be allowed to use the evidence, despite the circumstances under which it was found. Herring was convicted and sentenced to 27 months of incarceration.
In January 2009, after a series of appeals, the decision reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled evidence obtained through police negligence or error, is legal for trial. This decision is a direct breach of the Fourth Amendment.
In relation to search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" and of even greater relevance to the specific case on which the Supreme Court's decision was based, "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
In July 2004, Bennie Dean Herring arrived in a pickup truck at the Coffee County, Ala., Sheriff's Office to check on the status of an impounded vehicle. Upon arriving, Herring was recognized by the county investigator, Mark Anderson, who quickly checked for any outstanding warrants against Herring. A warrant clerk in neighboring Dale County confirmed that there was a warrant for Herring's arrest for failing to appear in court on a felony charge. Acting quickly, Mark Anderson arrested Herring, discovering methamphetamine and an unregistered pistol inside the truck. Soon after, however, the warrant clerk contacted Anderson, informing him that a mistake had been made and the warrant for Herring had been rescinded, thus rendering the search and seizure illegal.
In Herring's subsequent trial, the judge ruled that the prosecution would be allowed to use the evidence, despite the circumstances under which it was found. Herring was convicted and sentenced to 27 months of incarceration.
In January 2009, after a series of appeals, the decision reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled evidence obtained through police negligence or error, is legal for trial. This decision is a direct breach of the Fourth Amendment.
In relation to search and seizure, the Fourth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" and of even greater relevance to the specific case on which the Supreme Court's decision was based, "No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
