ABAJ: Chemerinsky: 10 lessons from Chief Justice Roberts’ first 10 years

ABAJ: Chemerinsky: 10 lessons from Chief Justice Roberts’ first 10 years by Erwin Chemerinsky:

5. The Roberts Court has had a mixed record on criminal procedure in its most important cases, often ruling for the government, but sometimes for criminal defendants. This is especially evident as to the Fourth Amendment. For example, in Maryland v. King (2013), the Court held 5-4 that it does not offend the Fourth Amendment for the government to take DNA from those arrested for serious offenses to see whether it matches for other unsolved crimes. But in Riley v. California (2014), the court unanimously held that the police cannot look at the contents of a person’s cellphone when searching a person at the time of an arrest unless there is a warrant or exigent circumstances.

The Roberts Court, though, has weakened the protections of the exclusionary rule when there are police violations of the Fourth Amendment. For instance, in Herring v. United States (2009), the court concluded that the exclusionary rule applies only if there are intentional or reckless violations of the Fourth Amendment, but not for negligent or good faith violations of that provision by the police.