The fourth amendment presents a balance that gives privacy a broad, flexible scope while permitting intrusions by society's agents under precisely enunciated circumstances. Twentieth-century search and seizure law has reflected a struggle between those who would preserve this balance and those who would reframe it. The 1967 decision in Camara v. Municipal Court signaled the beginning of the shift to the revisionist philosophy, by noting the need to balance the need to search against the invasion that the search entails. The 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio moved a step further by holding the search or seizure could be reasonable without probable cause, if reasonable suspicion existed. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is another result of the growing dominance of revisionist theory. The revisionist view is also in a position to control the result of two remaining unresolved issues: whether the good faith exception applies to searches and seizures based on reasonable suspicion and whether reasonable suspicion is, by definition, individualized suspicion. Decisions reflecting the revisionist view would further reduce much of the fourth amendment's textual protection of the individual's reasonable expectations of privacy. 51 reference notes.