There is some very interesting information located in the opinions (Thanks Citizen). From Justice Ginsberg:
"Investigator Mark Anderson, who was at the Department that day, knew Herring from prior interactions: Herring had told the district attorney, among others, of his suspicion that Anderson had been involved in the killing of a local teenager, and Anderson had pursued Herring to get him to drop the accusations. Id., at63–64. Informed that Herring was in the impoundment lot, Anderson asked the Coffee County warrant clerk whether there was an outstanding warrant for Herring’s arrest." Before knowing that I was interested as to exactly why Herring was so interesting to the detective. So say that he was "familiar" with law enforcement doesn't quite give you the whole picture. Accusing a detective of a serious crime could go to the heart of whether or not the detective was culpable in this error. It's also interesting to note that the investigator did NOT wait for confirmation of the warrant that the Coffee County clerk requested from Dale County. From the Roberts opinion:
After checking Dale County’s computer database, Morgan replied that there was an active arrest warrant for Herring’s failure to appear on a felony charge. Pope relayed the information to Anderson and asked Morgan to fax over a copy of the warrant as confirmation. Anderson and a deputy followed Herring as he left the impound lot, pulled him over, and arrested him.So the investigator apparently did have a dog in the fight and he could have waited for confirmation of the warrant which was in progress and assumingly would have taken no more than a few minutes.
Am I reading too much into this or could there be more than meets the eye here?