How to Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters

Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684,
6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961)

Police officers forcibly entered Dollree Mapp's home in search of a bombing suspect. In the course of the search, officers failed to produce a valid search warrant and denied Mapp contact with her attorney, who was present at the scene. While the suspect was not found, officers did discover illegal pornography in Mapp's home, for which she was charged and convicted. Mapp appealed her conviction claiming that the evidence against her should not be admissible in court because it was illegally obtained.

In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in State courts. The Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures could not be properly enforced as long as illegally obtained evidence continued to be presented in court. The ruling argued that there was no other effective means of deterring widespread Fourth Amendment violations by police. The ruling acknowledged that sometimes a criminal could go free due to improper police conduct, but argued that the interest in promoting professionalism among police outweighed this concern.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling in Herring v. U.S. provides yet another opportunity for us to put a bad ruling in perspective. Like most recent 4th Amendment cases decided by the Court, Herring is an unfortunate finding, but it’s not going to change our advice on handling police encounters.

Bennie Dean Herring was known to local police, who spotted him at the impound lot where he was retrieving an item from his impounded truck. An officer confirmed that Herring had a warrant in a neighboring county and arrested him, in the process discovering methamphetamine and a gun. Moments later, the officer learned that the warrant was erroneous, thus the arrest and subsequent search were invalid.

The Supreme Court found that because officers legitimately believed a warrant existed for Herring’s arrest, their actions were justified and not subject to the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence. This is called the "good faith" doctrine, wherein police actions are upheld if officers believed they were acting legally (even if they were not).

The "good faith" doctrine is nothing new, so the Court’s decision isn’t particularly shocking. The Court argues that the exclusionary rule is intended to deter police misconduct and shouldn’t be applied here because the officers didn’t willfully do anything wrong. The dissent argues, and I agree, that the exclusionary rule is a perfectly appropriate means of deterring police agencies from keeping bad records that cause illegal arrests. If there’s no penalty for using bad information, then police have no incentive to keep their books in order. Worse yet, I could envision situations in which police manufacture "good faith" circumstances by preemptively withholding relevant facts from the arresting officers.

The exclusionary rule is vital to the interests of justice and we regret any ruling that reduces the citizen’s protection against illegally obtained evidence. That said, we hope the public will recognize that today’s decision is based on a specific set of circumstances and does not mean that police can now perform illegal arrests at will. The 4th Amendment continues to protect citizens against illegal searches, particularly in common scenarios such as searches that follow a refusal of consent. There’s no question that the Supreme Court is disturbingly reluctant to uphold 4th Amendment rights, but our right against unreasonable searches and seizures is still relevant in the vast majority of common police encounters. Knowing these rights remains your best and only defense when confronted by law enforcement.