Displaying an extraordinary ignorance of 4th Amendment law the New York Times had this to say about a perfectly reasonable decison under the exclusionary rule. I'm just a little surprised the majority wasn't larger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16fri2.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

It seems the dissent's arguments can be taken care of by way of civil suits against the police for sloppy record-keeping----but only by innocent persons wrongly arrested!!
JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-16-09 at .]

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-16-09 at .]

Well, would this matter under the Texas exclusionary rule?

Oh Texas has always provided additional protections, e.g., accomplice witness rule, recording oral confessions, no inevitable discovery, and, of course, art 38.23. We are only talking about the floor of the 4th Amendment. While I don't favor sloppy police work, these were different departments in different counties. How does excluding evidence from County A deter County B from carelessness?

JAS

[This message was edited by JAS on 01-16-09 at .]

I believe there was a case out of San Antonio (White v. State, 989 S.W.2d 108) that applied Leon to the good faith exception found in 38.23 in the case of a recalled warrant. They said it was okay because they didn't find a meaningful distinction between clerical errors on the part of clerks and clerical errors on the part of the police. Oddly, few have cited to the case, but it now seems fairly precient.

Doesn't change the fact that you still have to introduce the recalled warrant, though.

[This message was edited by David Newell on 01-16-09 at .]