CA4: Objectively reasonable reliance on NCIC readout supported arrest on an outdated warrant still in system; NCIC’s errors ignored

NCIC showed a warrant was outstanding, and defendant told the officer it was quashed. Yet, it still was in the system. The officer checked various databases from his car computer, and he found nothing that showed that the warrant wasn’t still active. He made a call that produced the same information, but it proved wrong: The warrant had been quashed. Nevertheless, the officer’s reliance was objectively reasonable, and Herring controls. The motion to suppress was properly denied. United States v. Brown, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13294 (4th Cir. July 30, 2015):

If an officer acted with objectively reasonable reliance on incorrect database information, we conclude that the officer acted in good faith, and the exclusionary rule does not apply. See id. at 142. We find that to be the case here, for the reasons that follow. Brown contends, in essence, that Morrison’s reliance was not objectively reasonable. Brown argues that because the NCIC database is known to be frequently incorrect, Morrison should not have relied on its information. To the contrary, however, this court has concluded that the NCIC database generally is accurate and that widespread use of its reports indicates they may be trusted. United States v. McDowell , 745 F.3d 115, 121-22 (4th Cir. 2014). Further, Morrison did not rely solely on NCIC’s information in concluding that Brown’s arrest warrant was valid. As we have noted, he asked his dispatcher to confirm with the MTA that the warrant was active. That Morrison took that additional step places his precautions beyond those of the officer in Herring, on which both parties rely.

NCIC is frequently riddled with outdated information. I’ve had witnesses admit that on the stand in federal court and a USMJ who refused to rely on an NCIC printout as an accurate reflection of criminal history.