Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, and dispatch said he was on parole which meant he was subject to search. He wasn’t on parole, but the officer’s good faith reliance on the dispatch report under Herring means no suppression. United States v. McCloud, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101728 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2018):
Although the officers were mistaken — McCloud correctly stated during the traffic stop that he was not on PRCS — the record indicates that their reliance on the dispatcher’s report was objectively reasonable. “To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. … [Exclusion] serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence.” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 144, 129 S. Ct. 695, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496 (2009). None of the facts before the Court indicate that the dispatcher’s error about PRCS was grossly negligent or the result of systemic negligence. Nor does McCloud argue that it was unreasonable for the officers to take dispatch’s word over his. The officers’ objectively reasonable belief that McCloud was a parolee subject to a suspicionless search condition is an alternative sufficient reason to deny the suppression motion.