Author Question: The dissent in Herring v. U.S. (2009) argued that the exclusionary rule should apply to a search ... (Read 54 times)

rosent76 · **on:** Aug 16, 2018

The dissent in Herring v. U.S. (2009) argued that the exclusionary rule should apply to a search conducted pursuant to an arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled months earlier because:

a. there was reason to believe that the arresting officer who conducted the search should have investigatedwhether the warrant was recalled
b. the officer did not honestly believe he was acting in good faith
c. negligent bookkeeping mistakes by law enforcement threaten individual liberty and can be deterred by theexclusionary rule
d. probable cause was required to conduct the search

Question 2

According to the Supreme Court opinion in Herring v. U.S. (2009), involving a search pursuant to an active arrest warrant that was later discovered to have been recalled several months earlier:

a. evidence obtained by officers who honestly believe they are acting lawfully is admissible.
b. the good faith of officers is irrelevant to the determination whether or not to exclude evidence.
c. all evidence seized pursuant to a search not based on probable cause must be excluded.
d. the evidence seized pursuant to the search is admissible if the police acted objectively, in reasonably goodfaith and the error in record keeping was negligent but not reckless