Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

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

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

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, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4906 (9th Cir. March 9, 2010): http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/09/09-10147.pdf 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...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on March 10, 2010 (boomark / email).