October Term 2008 · Docket 07-513

Does a police database error require suppressing evidence?

The dispute centers on whether a clerical error in a police database mandates the exclusion of evidence found during a subsequent arrest.

Official caption
Herring v. United States
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    the side that brought the case's advocate stated the clerk notified the sheriff's department of the recalled warrant.

    The government's advocate argued the exclusionary rule balances deterrence against the cost of excluding evidence.

    The government's advocate stated the rule does not put the error back in the box.

    the side that brought the case's advocate noted that showing an isolated error often requires a lengthy hearing.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case examines the scope of the exclusionary rule. It tests whether a good-faith administrative mistake by police warrants suppressing evidence. The core issue is the balance between deterring misconduct and admitting probative evidence.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 7, 2008.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the evidence admitted because the police error was isolated and good-faith.

The government wants the evidence excluded to deter future police recordkeeping failures.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues the exclusionary rule should not apply to isolated, good-faith administrative errors.

The government argues the rule must deter all police misconduct, regardless of the error's nature.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Does the argument depend on the specific department's recordkeeping quality?

Why did the first officer need a physical copy of the warrant?

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of the exclusionary rule. It determines how courts treat good-faith police errors. The outcome shapes the balance between evidence admissibility and police accountability.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON