In Weeks v. the United States (1914), the Supreme Court In Weeks v. the United States (1914), the Supreme Court ruled that the state has no right to hold unlawfully seized property and that governmental institutions must not sanction unlawful searches and seizures. In Wolf v. Colorado (1949), the Court held that protection against arbitrary police intrusion into citizens' privacy is implicit in 'the concept of ordered liberty' and is therefore enforceable against the States under the due process clause of the Constitution. The ruling, however, left enforcement means open to the discretion of the States. In Elkins v. United States (1960), the court held that the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to police, prosecutor, and judge. The Court, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), concluded that the exclusionary rule is required by 'Weeks' and that the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful searches and seizures. The Burger Court has narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule. In United States v. Peltier (1975), the Court refused to apply the rule because the involved officers acted 'in good faith' in conducting a search later found to be unlawful because of a flawed warrant. This rationale was again applied in Rakas v. Illinois (1978). The Court has not argued for the abolition of the exclusionary rule but for an application of the rule that measures its deterrence effectiveness in particular cases. Although the Burger Court has based its rulings on the belief that application of the exclusionary rule exacts high costs for society, empirical evidence shows the rule is relevant in a small percentage of cases. Three notes and a 3-item bibliography.