Herring v. United States

The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to prevent the use of evidence obtained unlawfully and to deter future government misconduct. However, the fact that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, does not necessarily mean the exclusionary rule applies. The court noted, “Exclusion (of evidence) has always been our last resort, not our first impulse.” Hudson v. Michigan. To trigger the exclusionary rule, government 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. In this case, there was no evidence that the errors in the agency’s arrest warrant database were routine or widespread. The arresting officer testified he never had reason to question information about a warrant listed in that agency’s database. In addition, other officers testified that they could remember no similar miscommunication ever happening.