Good-Faith Reliance on Bad Information: Supreme Court Revisits Good-Mth Exception to Exclusionary Rule

摘要

The Herring Court is quite explicit in its recognition of the negative impact of the exclusionary rule. When compelling evidence is suppressed by the Court, that decision often leads to the acquittal of an evidently guilty defendant; thus, the exclusionary rule can impose substantial societal costs. The rule should be applied to exclude evidence only when the beneficial effect of deterring law enforcement misconduct outweighs the detrimental impact that exclusion would inflict on the justice system and on society. Still, the Herring case should not be read to be a "blank check" to excuse constitutional errors committed by law enforcement officers; instead, the case simply reiterates the point that punishing officers for honest and reasonable mistakes does not advance the purpose of the exclusionary rule.