Supreme Court Hears Case on Errors in Government Databases
UPDATE: The Supreme Court has posted a transcript (pdf) of oral arguments.
Today, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Herring v. US, a case in which I was co-counsel on an amicus curiae brief. In Herring v. US, the police searched and then arrested Bennie Dean Herring based on incorrect information in a government database. Though Herring told the officers that he did not have a warrant out for his arrest, and no officer had seen nor could produce a copy of the arrest warrant, the officers illegally arrested and searched him. He was later indicted.
In District Court, Herring argued that the evidence gathered incident to his unlawful arrest should be suppressed; he said the exclusionary rule prevented the use of such evidence. (The exclusionary rule provides that evidence must be suppressed if it is gathered in violation of an individual’s constitutional rights. There are exceptions and the issue is more complex than this, but this is the general rule.)
When the District Court ruled against him, Herring appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed (pdf) the district court’s ruling. Herring then petitioned (pdf) the US Supreme Court, which accepted the case and will hear oral arguments on it today.
In May, I was co-counsel on the amicus curiae brief (pdf) filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, legal and technical experts, and civil liberty organizations. (An amicus curiae brief is filed by a person or group who is not a party in the case, but wishes to address issues of law, policy, or some other aspect of the case.)
In our brief, amici explained how the government’s own studies show its databases are becoming increasingly unreliable and urged the Court to “ensure an accuracy obligation on law enforcement agents who rely on criminal justice information systems.” In fact, ”to permit a good faith reliance on data that is inaccurate, incomplete, or out of date will actually exacerbate the problem and increase the likelihood of unfair treatment in the criminal justice system.”
The technology of government databases is much changed since 1995′s Arizona v. Evans, when the Court upheld the use of evidence obtained from an erroneous record based on a clerical mistake. In recent years, there has been an increase in data-sharing among federal, state, local, tribal and commercial entities.
“Today, the police have within their electronic reach access to an extraordinary range of databases including: the National Crime Information Center, systems associated with the federal government’s employment eligibility verification system, terrorist watch lists and various commercial databases,” amici said.
The official Question Presented (pdf) to the Court is:
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires evidence found during a search incident to an arrest to be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible but erroneous information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent.
More information about the case can be found on SCOTUSBlog.
Possibly related posts: