As originally enunciated by the Supreme Court, the rationale for the exclusionary rule was to deter unlawful police conduct and to preserve judicial integrity by preventing courts from becoming 'accomplices in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn to uphold.' In recent years, the Supreme Court has refused to cite the judicial integrity rationale, which is not suprising since the rule requires the release on technical grounds of persons who may be clearly guilty of serious crimes. The deterrence rationale cannot be supported either by empirical evidence or logic. The goal of deterring police misconduct cannot be served when courts apply the exclusionary rule to situations in which appellate cases are unclear, confused, and contradictory, such that the police cannot be sure of what search-and-seizure behavior is legal. The Reagan administration's legislative proposal would exclude the use of the exclusionary rule only in those circumstances in which the rule could not possibly have its intended deterrent effects. It would allow the admission of evidence whenever an officer either obtains a warrant or conducts a search or seizure without a warrant but with a reasonable, good faith belief that the action was in accord with the fourth amendment requirements.