CA9: Herring does not save deliberately overlong seizure of a business waiting for a warrant

Officers seized a karaoke bar sex club in Guam pending getting a search warrant, but it took 26½ hours. That was just too long to be reasonable under any authorities. Despite Herring, the exclusionary rule was applied. United States v. Cha, 597 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2010):

Finally, the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Herring v. United States, does not change our decision to affirm suppression of the evidence. 129 S. Ct. 695 (2009). …

The Herring Court explained that Supreme Court cases apply the exclusionary rule to “deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence.” Id. at 702. It concluded that because the exclusionary rule is triggered only if police conduct is “sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system,” id., the marginal deterrence of excluding evidence that was the result of isolated, “nonrecurring and attenuated negligence” did not “‘pay its way,'” id. at 702, 704. The Court noted that it was “crucial to [its] holding” that the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the police error was merely negligent and that the “question presented treat[ed] the error as a ‘negligen[t]’ one.” Id. at 700 & n.1.

Because Herring only applies to isolated police negligence, it does not bar suppression here because the police conduct was deliberate, culpable, and systemic.

The police conduct was sufficiently deliberate. …

[Note: This is a significant case on the scope of Herring. The government may keep this case going for rehearing and cert.]

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.