Search results
Herring v. U.S. 555 U.S. 135 (2009) Vote: 5 (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas) 4 (Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens) FACTS On July 7th, 2004, Investigator Mark Anderson learned that Bennie Dean Herring had driven to the Coffee County (Alabama) Sheriff’s Department to reclaim some possessions from his impounded truck.
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) - Free download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. Filed: 2009-01-14 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 555 U.S. 135, 129 S. Ct. 695, 172 L. Ed. 2d 496, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 581 Docket: 07-513 Supreme Court Database id: 2008-009
Chief Justice Roberts contrasted the error in Herring with the police conduct in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), in which officers broke into the defendant’s house, confiscated papers, and later returned to confiscate more papers, all without a warrant, and Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S.
Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) Bennie Dean Herring was arrested after Inspector Mark Anderson of the Coffee County, Alabama Police Department was informed that an active arrest warrant existed for Herring in Dale County, Alabama. During the
Facts. Investigator Mark Anderson learned that Bennie Dean Herring had driven to the Coffee County Sheriff's Department to retrieve something from his impounded truck. Upon checking for outstanding warrants against Herring, a warrant clerk in Coffee County found none and then contacted her counterpart in neighboring Dale County.
19 lut 2008 · Facts of the case The Coffee County, Alabama Sheriff's Department apprehended Bennie Herring in July of 2004. Upon searching Herring's vehicle, officers discovered methamphetamine in Herring's pocket and a gun under the seat of his truck.
Herring was indicted on federal gun and drug possession charges and moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that his initial arrest had been illegal. Assuming that there was a Fourth Amendment violation, the District Court concluded that the exclusionary rule did not apply and denied the motion to suppress.
