US Supreme Court becomes Canadian

Yes, I mean this a bit facetiously, but to a certain extent it is true.  The US Supreme Court has now agreed that improperly obtained evidence may be admissible now, in particular circumstances.  This has been the law in Canada for some time as the interpretation of s.24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and has been expanded and reaffirmed in a quartet of SCC judgments this past summer (for example, R. v. Grant).

Specifically, the SCOTUS has said, in a 5-4 decision, that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant.  This is still a very specific exemption from the exclusionary rule.

“To trigger the exclusionary rule,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system.”

This is an interesting decision from a rather conservative court, though one that is not unexpected.  It does, to a certain extent, water down the rights of the accused.  However, unlike in Canada, it simply excuses sloppy record keeping from preventing an otherwise sound charge. 

The case began when methamphetamines and a gun were found after Bennie Herring was arrested based on police officers’ mistaken belief that he was subject to an outstanding arrest warrant.  He wasn’t.  Or rather, he had been, but the warrant was withdrawn though the records were not updated.

This didn’t prevent the courts from getting the conviction that Herring rightly deserved.  And, in my opinion, this was a correct decision.  The officer acted in good faith in moving on what he perceived to be an outstanding warrant. 

The Dissenting judges (4 of the liberal justices on the Court) stated that the majority

“underestimates the need for a forceful exclusionary rule and the gravity of record keeping violations,” particularly given the heavy reliance by law enforcement on the electronic databases that “form the nervous system of contemporary criminal justice operations.

I see their point as well.  We don’t want to excuse police error and encourage sloppy record keeping.  However, in the isolated case like this, I do think the court should have the discretion to admit this sort of evidence.  I mean, it’s worked in Canada, right?

[Source: NYT]