Gov't Database Errors Leading To Unconstitutional Searches?

Wired is running a story about a case the Supreme Court will be hearing on Tuesday that relates to searches based on erroneous information in government databases. In the case of Herring vs. US 07-513, the defendant was followed and pulled over based on a records indicating he had a warrant out for his arrest. Upon further review, the local county clerk found the records were in error, and the warrant notification should have been removed months prior. Unfortunately for Herring, he had already been arrested and his car searched. Police found a small amount of drugs and a firearm, for which Herring was subsequently prosecuted. Several friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed to argue this case, some calling for "an accuracy obligation on law enforcement agents [PDF] who rely on criminal justice information systems," and others defending such searches as good-faith exceptions [PDF].

Comments

Being in the database at all

[mysidia]

Having a recent warrant out for arrest, being already charged with a crime, out on bail, or already been convicted of a crime. Seems like reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to me.

It is not as if the police accidentally targeted an innocent person who hadn't had a warrant out for their arrest in a year.

The arrest wasn't wrongful due to the additional charges.

If the criminal had no drugs or weapons in his car, then it would be abuse by the authorities to arrest, but not abuse to search based on their reasonable suspicions.

Even though those suspicions had been based on some information that had turned out to be inaccurate.

The charges should stand.

Re:Herring was arrested...

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Yeah, I can't believe that those state police weren't out hunting Bin Laden! How DARE they do their jobs in their town/county/state?!

Re:Indeed, the 2nd is easily understood

[Atlantis-Rising]

I suggest you try out that argument, and attempt to possess the modern equivalent of a canon (say a 155mm howitzer).

See how far your "But teh 2nd Amendment!" claim gets you.

For that matter, the Court in DC v. Heller seems to come to the conclusion that M-16s may be banned from public carriage, which makes the entire issue even more farcical; you are not allowed to carry military weapons, and such arms are not protected.