Herryng V. United States, 553 Us (2009)
Essay Preview: Herryng V. United States, 553 Us (2009)
Report this essay
HERRYNG V. UNITED STATES, 553 US (2009)
Case questions:
What s according the chief justice the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule?
“Unreasonable searches and seizures.” The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to exclude evidence that is obtained illegally from the case, but he also explained that the police conducted the arrest base in a recall warrant that existed, and in that arrest they search Mr. Herring’s car and found methamphetamine in his pockets and a pistol in his vehicle. So it wasn’t illegal and constable has blundered.
How do you believe this opinion will be interpreted by law enforcement officials?
I believe they are going to be more careful especially when writing records on the computer and updating files, names, etc…, because from there is when all the information from someone who has been investigated is going to be interpreter. If they continue or make more mistakes like that all the credibility is going to be affected.
Critics claim that court ruling like those in Hudson and Herring establish bad precedents because they allow the prosecution to introduce evidence at trial that officers obtained by violating the Constitution. Do you agree with this argument?
No, because they made an arrest based only in a record, and because of this the found that Herrings was doing illegal things like carrying a pistol in his car, they didn’t do a search. They called the clerk and because of the warrant existent they stop Herring and procedure to do the arrest and discover very luckily that he had the pistol and the drug.
In Hudson case, I’m not agree, because they entered to the house just because he was trying to hide and this was the only way to get him. I can picture the scene of both him escaping every time they went to look for him