skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 97718 Find in a Library
Title: Evolution and Confusion of Exclusion - Does 'Good Faith' Make Good Sense Under the Fourth Amendment?
Journal: Detroit College of Law Review  Volume:1983  Issue:4  Dated:(Winter 1983)  Pages:1587-1612
Author(s): R J Zettel; S F Maviglia
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 26
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This comment traces the evolution of the exclusionary rule, analyzes its social costs and effectiveness, and investigates the need for alternatives, with attention to a two-pronged subjective/objective standard for a good faith exception.
Abstract: A review of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule highlights benchmark Supreme Court decisions, including Weeks v. United States, Mapp v. Ohio, Carroll v. United States, and Brinegar v. United States. It emphasizes that certain situations are not specifically within the reach of the fourth amendment and that the Court has reasoned the issue of probable cause must be viewed in terms of reasonableness. Restrictive applications of the exclusionary rule since Mapp are examined. Beginning with Linkletter v. Walker and ending with Illinois v. Gates, this discussion covers stop and frisk situations, damages for innocent victims of illegal searches, and the good faith exception. The paper addresses criticisms of the rule, noting that public perception that the rule releases only guilty defendants may be responsible for its greatest social cost: contempt for the law and the judicial system. Three cases which could allow the Court to exercise its prerogative to modify the exclusionary rule are described: United States v. Leon, Massachusetts v. Sheppard, and Colorado v. Quintaro. The author considers the most feasible approach to the exclusionary rule to be a two-pronged subjective/objective standard. This would require that a police officer show a good faith belief his conduct was in accordance with the law and that there were reasonable grounds to support that belief. Such a good faith exception would actually increase public opinion of the judiciary and all but negate disproportionate results occurring from total exclusion. The paper includes 192 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Exceptions to exclusionary rule; Exclusionary rule; Search and seizure laws; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.