More Criticism of the Supreme Court's Herring Decision
Law Prof Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, has an excellent op-ed today in the New York Post criticizing the Supreme Court's decision yesterday in Herring (background here), restricting the exclusionary rule.
How many times have we all heard "ignorance of the law is not a defense?" With this opinion, the Supreme Court is saying this rule applies only to citizens, not to police.
You can see their reasoning. Herring's a bad guy. Why punish the police by letting a guilty man go free when they just made a simple mistake?
Except that the rest of us enjoy no such immunity.
....Likewise, police are given a pass, under the doctrine of "good faith immunity," from having to understand the intricacies of suspects' constitutional rights: A right must be clearly established before an officer is liable for violating it, apparently on the theory that constitutional law is just too confusing for police.
|< Thursday Morning Open Thread | BART Cop Charged With Murder of Unarmed Oakland Man >|