SCOTUS Briefs

2008 Supreme Court term

BENNIE DEAN HERRING v. UNITED STATES.

Dockets 07-513Argued
Argued
October 7, 2008
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Petitioner, the case concerns a warrant that was recalled but not updated in the computer system, leading to a warrantless arrest of the petitioner.

The petitioner asks the Court to apply Arizona v. Evans.

Background and question before the Court

Justice Alito asked whether the petitioner’s argument depends on the quality of the record‑keeping in the sheriff’s department.

Justice Scalia asked whether negligence is relevant, suggesting the argument is about sheer causality rather than negligence.

Justice Kennedy asked for the definition of negligence, suggesting it means conduct that is not objectively reasonable.

Justice Breyer asked for clarification on distinguishing the nature of the bad conduct (negligent, reckless, deliberate) and who performed it (police official or other).

Justice Kennedy referenced Hudson v. Michigan and asked whether the Court had engaged in a broad balancing of social costs versus potential violations.

Justice Souter asked why personal liability law, which compensates for negligence even without bad faith, might affect conduct.

According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned the justification for distinguishing between a court employee and other police department staff when a mistake occurs.

Justice Scalia stated that the police will not keep good records unless criminals are let go.

Justice Ginsburg noted that it is unknown whether the records are good, bad, or indifferent.

What each side argues

Petitioner

The petitioner argues that the warrant recall error was a clerical mistake that caused a warrantless arrest lacking probable cause.

According to Petitioner, the petitioner requests the Court apply Arizona v. Evans.

Counsel Mr. Dreeben argues that an isolated negligent clerical error should not lead to suppression of evidence.

Mr. Dreeben also contends that the costs of the exclusionary rule may outweigh its benefits.

Ms. Karlan argues that negligent police error should result in suppression of the evidence.

According to Ms. Karlan, ms. Karlan advocates for a narrow rule that applies only when police officials act negligently.

According to Ms. Karlan, ms. Karlan describes the proposed rule as a clean, narrow rule.

United States

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

According to Petitioner, during oral argument, the petitioner described the recall error and its consequences.

The petitioner asked the Court to apply Arizona v. Evans.

Mr. Dreeben argued that an isolated negligent clerical error should not lead to suppression and that the exclusionary rule’s costs may outweigh its benefits.

Ms. Karlan argued that negligent police error should result in suppression and advocated for a clean, narrow rule limited to negligence.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 199125a4e9245d5d593d-r1-2acc9027c86b6579.pdforal argument transcript
    Archived copy

Guide generated September 22, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.