THE LEGAL ARGUMENT PRESENTED IN THE BRIEF HOLDS THAT THE FOURTH AMENDMENT EXCLUSIONARY RULE SHOULD BE MODIFIED OR ABROGATED IN FAVOR OF MORE EFFICACIOUS REMEDIES BECAUSE ITS EFFECT IS WITHOUT LEGAL PRECEDENT, IT RAISES BARRIERS TO GOOD FAITH POLICE PERFORMANCE, IT PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE TO BREAK THE LAW (THROUGH THE RENDERING OF FALSE VERDICTS), AND CIVIL REMEDIES ARE A SATISFACTORY ALTERNATIVE TO THE RULE. THE BRIEF FURTHER ADVOCATES THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ABROGATION OR MODIFICATION OF THE RULE, FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS REMEDIES SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO PETITIONERS WHO DO SO ON FOURTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL GROUNDS. THE BRIEF ALSO ARGUES THAT REHABILITATION OF SEARCH WARRANTS ISSUED ON LESS THAN PROBABLE CAUSE IS A REALISTIC AND BALANCED APPROACH TO CASES WHERE THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE'S PURPOSES HAVE BEEN SERVED BY THE FACT THAT THE OFFICERS INVOLVED HAVE OBTAINED A WARRANT PRIOR TO THE SEARCH.