Citation network
Herring Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 14, 2009
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Herring v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 07-513 (2009) Syllabus October Term, 2008 Herring V. UnitedSearch
-
would be marginal or nonexistent and that the evidence was admissible under the good-faith rule of United States v. LeonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
fact that a search or arrest was unreasonable does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
s database that an arrest warrant was outstanding, Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
that gave rise to the rule featured intentional conduct that was patently unconstitutional. See, e.g. , Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined. Herring v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 07-513 (2009) Opinion of the Court Herring V. UnitedSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 07-513 Bennie Dean Herring, Petitioner V. UnitedSearch
-
quotation marks omitted), and the evidence was therefore admissible under the good-faith rule of United States v. LeonSearch
-
Other courts have required exclusion of evidence obtained through similar police errors, e.g ., Hoay v. StateSearch
-
Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
rule that, when applicable, forbids the use of improperly obtained evidence at trial. See, e.g. , Weeks v. UnitedSearch
-
does not necessarily mean that the exclusionary rule applies. Illinois v. GatesSearch
-
Hudson v. MichiganSearch
-
Leon , supra, at 909 (quoting United States v. JanisSearch
-
see also United States v. HavensSearch
-
Ibid. , n. 23. In a companion case, Massachusetts v. SheppardSearch
-
quoting United States v. PeltierSearch
-
see also Brown v. IllinoisSearch
-
Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Id., at 391. Equally flagrant conduct was at issue in Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 643 (1961), which overruled Wolf v. ColoradoSearch
-
Our decision in Franks v. DelawareSearch
-
s knowledge and experience, Ornelas v. UnitedSearch
-
but not his subjective intent, Whren v. UnitedSearch
-
Id. , at 923, n. 24 (citing Whiteley v. WardenSearch
-
People v. DeforeSearch
-
F. 3d 1212, 1217 (2007) (quoting Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
post , at 5 (quoting Arizona v. EvansSearch
-
does not justify doing so. Majestic or not, our cases reject this conception, see, e.g ., United States v. LeonSearch
-
record and credited by the Court of Appeals, see 492 F. 3d, at 1219, is of course entitled to deference. Herring v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 07-513 (2009) Ginsburg, J., Dissenting Herring V. UnitedSearch
-
F. 3d 1212, 1217 (CA11 2007) (quoting Michigan v. TuckerSearch
-
suggested that in at least some cases the rule exacted too high a price from the criminal justice system. See People v. DeforeSearch
-
see Stewart, The Road to Mapp v. OhioSearch
-
as an essential auxiliary to the Amendment earlier inclined the Court to hold the two inseparable. See Whiteley v. WardenSearch
-
Cf. Olmstead v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial