This is my analysis for Herring v. United States. Bennie Herring was unlawfully arrested by sheriff officers after an error by a neighboring county sheriff’s department mistakenly showed he had an outstanding warrant. They realized the error quickly, but by the time the mistake was discovered, the arresting officers found drug and firearm related evidence in Herring’s truck that led to him being arrested, tried, and convicted for possession of a controlled substance and illegal possession of a firearm. Herring tried to suppress the evidence during his trial under the exclusionary rule, but his request was denied. Herring appealed his conviction and his case was eventually picked up and heard by the United States Supreme Court, which ended…show more content… It emboldens the good-faith exception rule and police authority during a time in our society in which the opposite is needed. The Fourth Amendment was adopted in 1792 and its purpose is to protect citizens from unlawful search and seizure, but what qualifies as unlawful is shaped and determined upon decisions made by the judicial branch of our government. The Fourth Amendment is the result of colonists whose rights for privacy and personal property were subjected to many years of abuse by the overreaching authority of the English Monarchy (Kilpinen, 2010). Public trust in law enforcement has been declining at an exponential rate over the past few years and many people feel like police authority has become overreaching and abusive. Checks and balances are only effective when properly exercised and this decision could have brought about increased balance and emboldened our individual rights while checking police power a small bit. Since the Fourth Amendment’s adoption, there have been multiple cases that assert the protection it extends. This bring us to my second argument, whether or not the exclusionary rule or good faith exception should apply to this…show more content… There are many implications that result from a society with low levels of trust in the government by the general public. For instance, civil unrest is a symptom of a lack of public trust in the police and government, so the irony that there is currently civil unrest and riots breaking out in Baltimore as I write this conclusion is not lost on me. The Supreme Court erred when it failed to recognize and properly utilize the power entrusted to them stemming from the checks and balance system in place by the three branches of government. I am not blaming law enforcement for having overreaching authority and unchecked abuse capabilities, because they are performing their duties within the boundaries that are set and allowed by law (for the most part), which is created by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch. I am not claiming that this decision has directly led to civil unrest in Baltimore, but it does show a lack of touch that exists between government decision makers and the people that their policies and decisions
