Many arguments over the exclusionary rule are not relevant when properly analyzed. For example, advocates for reforming the rule do not claim that the change will reduce crime. Furthermore, a recent National Institute of Justice report demonstrated that search and seizure laws had a significant impact on drug law enforcement, contradicting an earlier General Accounting Office review which concluded that modification of the rule would not affect the criminal justice system significantly. The Supreme Court first justified the exclusionary rule on two grounds: deterrence of unlawful police conduct and maintenance of judicial integrity. Courts have abandoned the latter rationale while expanding the rule's application to situations in which it cannot possibly serve as a deterrent. This is clearly demonstrated in recent cases where a second or third judge, in disagreement with the judge who issued the warrant, invalidates the search despite the absence of any police misconduct. The rule's deterrent purposes are also not achieved when courts apply the rule retroactively, to situations where the appellate court cases are not clear, or where the law is thoroughly confused. Present application of the exclusionary rule attaches a false label to proper police conduct and has produced a growing public concern that the judicial system lacks sense and fairness. Thus, the DOJ supports a construction of the exclusionary rule that would allow admission at trial of evidence seized during a search undertaken in a reasonable and good faith belief by the police officer that his or her conduct was lawful.