To me, the Herring decision by the Supreme Court seemed reasonable upon first glance. The holding was that when an error in police records caused cops to search the wrong person, evidence discovered via the search was not to be excluded. However, Tom Goldstein, one of the lawyers for the plaintiff, has a piece at ScotusBlog arguing that the decision is much broader. If so, the decision strikes me as unreasonable. Upon reflection, I’m unsure that I can state the distinction at issue with sufficient precision, so go read the piece. One thing that gives me pause about the interpretation is that Goldstein says the four dissenters didn’t pick up on the broader applicability of the ruling. I’ve only read so many Supreme Court decisions, so perhaps it’s ordinary to be circumspect about speculative consequences of a ruling, but I find such silence strange and Goldstein seems to agree.
Thanks to my friend Ed for sharing the piece.