This Article presents arguments that are designed to influence the Court's deliberations, to create a basis for critiquing the Court's opinions once rendered, and to provide guidance for state courts, which soon may need to decide whether a good faith exception is consistent with their state constitutions and procedures. To place the subsequent discussion in context, part I of the Article briefly sketches the historical development of the exclusionary rule. Part II develops the general arguments against the exclusionary rule and the specific arguments in favor of a good faith exception. Part III exposes the conceptual flaws of the exception by demonstrating its inconsistency with a constitutional concept of right, its disastrous effect on the substance of the fourth amendment, and its interference with a defendant's right to effective counsel. The Article considers practical problems associated with implementation of such an exception in part IV. Finally the Article, in its entirety, demonstrates the hidden agenda behind the movement supporting the good faith exception: minimizing the fourth amendment's significance and substantive protection...This Article has now described the historical development of the exclusionary rule, presented the arguments opposing the rule,and presented the logic and precedent supporting a good faith exception. The Article now shall prove that recognition of a good faith exception would be at best inadvisable; at worst, disastrous.
Defending the Citadel: The Dangerous Attack of "Reasonable Good Faith",
36 Vanderbilt Law Review
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol36/iss6/4