As Justice Ginsberg's dissent makes clear, there is no question that Bennie Herring should never have been subjected to an arrest. Failing to apply the exclusionary rule to the results of the search that followed his arrest undermines the Fourth Amendment.

The exclusionary rule provides redress for Fourth Amendment violations by placing the government in the position it would have been in had there been no unconstitutional arrest and search. The rule thus strongly encourages police compliance with the Fourth Amendment in the future.

While the majority opinion would apply the exclusionary rule to deliberate or systemic error in database management, or to reckless disregard of constitutional requirements, it will as a practical matter be impossible to prove that police clerks who manage databases are deliberately or recklessly failing to purge withdrawn warrants. Nor should that showing be necessary. Justice Ginsburg writes:

The exclusionary rule, the Court suggests, is capable of only marginal deterrence when the misconduct at issue is merely careless, not intentional or reckless. ... The suggestion runs counter to a foundational premise of tort law—that liability for negligence, i.e., lack of due care, creates an incentive to act with greater care.

In other words, if we want the police to keep databases up to date so that individuals are not unnecessarily arrested, we need to give them an incentive to do so. The exclusionary rule accomplishes that purpose. Its application would recognize "the paramount importance of accurate recordkeeping in law enforcement."

I doubt that police forces already possess sufficient incentives to maintain up-to-date records. The Government argues that police have no desire to send officers out on arrests unnecessarily, because arrests consume resources and place officers in danger. The facts of this case do not fit that description of police motivation. Here the officer wanted to arrest Herring and consulted the Department’s records to legitimate his predisposition.

The dissenters joining Justice Ginsberg were, unsuprisingly, Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer.