The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to control police power by prescribing certain conduct and by prescribing the conduct of lawful searches. Too broad an application of the good faith exception appears to reward ignorance, while too narrow an interpretation offers police no incentive to make their best efforts to comply with the fourth amendment. In the United States v. Leon, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the remedy of exclusion was separate from the question of substantive fourth amendment rights, resulting in a rigid all-or-nothing decision. It is argued that police good faith is but one circumstance affecting the application of the exclusionary rule. In previous decisions, the Court has used a more ambiguous and flexible approach in which good faith was one relevant circumstance in the totality of circumstances. This approach permits the court to attach some unspecified weight to police motivation and is more consistent with the Court's overall balancing approach to fourth amendment jurisprudence. 175 footnotes.