The Supreme Court ruling in Herring v. United States last Wednesday (14 Jan 2009) foolishly limited the evidence exclusion rules regarding police actions. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, including this: “To trigger the exclusionary rule, 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 utter nonsense.

Police departments and individual officers are motivated to do their jobs well, and both bitterly resent it when a case they feel they’ve made is tossed out “on a technicality”. Part of me immediately says, “tough!”, but part of me says, “good!”. It is best if cops do their jobs effectively and proudly, any employee or organization will do their best when they feel like they are performing well and their work is respected. Their motivation to eliminate wasted efforts can be powerful, and should be encouraged.

Roberts asserts that the occasional sloppy police work will not be deterred by throwing cases like this out of court, which means he has absolutely no sense at all. Occasional sloppy work is not something that just occasionally happens. Sloppy work is done in environments where sloppy work is acceptable. If sloppy work means your fellow officers are going to be upset about losing these cases, those officers are going to be powerful advocates for eliminating slipshod record keeping (as in this case) and other systemic failures.

If I Were King, I’d take advantage of this. Make sure the cops are trained well and have the resources to do their jobs. Don’t ask them to do idiotic things like fighting the War on Some Drugs. Back them to the hilt when they’re doing their jobs well. But never let them reap the rewards, either in advancement or satisfaction, of being casual about their responsibilities.