Herring v. United States
E545159
Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Herring v. United States canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5770516 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Herring v. United States Context triple: [United States v. Leon, subsequentCitationBy, Herring v. United States]
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Dorr v. United States
Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
-
C.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Herring v. United States Target entity description: Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
-
A.
Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
-
B.
Dorr v. United States
Dorr v. United States is a 1904 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the limited application of constitutional rights in unincorporated territories under the Insular Cases doctrine.
-
C.
Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States is a landmark 1951 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, significantly shaping First Amendment jurisprudence on speech advocating the overthrow of the government.
-
D.
Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States was a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of antiwar activists under federal law and is best known for Justice Holmes’s famous dissent articulating the “marketplace of ideas” concept in free speech jurisprudence.
-
E.
Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States is a 1957 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed the application of the Smith Act by distinguishing between the advocacy of abstract doctrine and the advocacy of concrete action to overthrow the government.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| category |
United States Supreme Court cases decided in 2009
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court cases on the Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| citation |
129 S. Ct. 695
ⓘ
172 L. Ed. 2d 496 ⓘ 555 U.S. 135 ⓘ |
| clarifies |
Arizona v. Evans
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
United States v. Leon NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2009-01-14 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy | Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| doctrine | good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| holding |
Evidence obtained as a result of isolated police negligence not sufficiently deliberate or culpable does not require suppression under the exclusionary rule.
ⓘ
Negligent bookkeeping error by police personnel does not trigger exclusion when not part of systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. ⓘ The exclusionary rule applies only where its deterrent benefits outweigh its substantial social costs. ⓘ |
| impact |
expanded the good-faith exception to include certain negligent police recordkeeping errors
ⓘ
narrowed application of the exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| joinedByInDissent |
Justice David H. Souter
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Justice Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| keyPrinciple | Exclusion is a last resort, not a first impulse. ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment search and seizure
ⓘ
scope of the exclusionary rule ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| originatingState | Alabama NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Bennie Dean Herring NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Arizona v. Evans
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Hudson v. Michigan NERFINISHED ⓘ Mapp v. Ohio NERFINISHED ⓘ United States v. Leon NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | Judgment of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed ⓘ |
| standardAnnounced | Exclusionary rule applies when police conduct is deliberate, reckless, grossly negligent, or involves recurring or systemic negligence. ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
criminal evidence suppression
ⓘ
police negligence ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2008 ⓘ |
| votingSplit | 5-4 decision ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Herring v. United States Description of subject: Herring v. United States is a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court case that further limited the application of the exclusionary rule by holding that evidence need not be suppressed when obtained through isolated police negligence rather than deliberate or reckless misconduct.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
subject surface form:
Utah v. Strieff