UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

garnered in good-faith, but by means later found to violate
the Fourth Amendment, did not deter legitimate as well as
unlawful police activities. To the extent the rule operates
to discourage police from reasonable and proper
investigative actions, it hinders the solution and even the
prevention of crime. A tremendous burden is also placed
on the state and federal judicial systems. One study
reveals that one-third of federal defendants going to trial
file Fourth Amendment suppression motions, and 70% to
90% of these involve formal hearings. Comptroller
General of the United States, Impact of the Exclusionary
Rule on Federal Criminal Prosecutions 10 (1979).
The rule also exacts a heavy price in undermining public
confidence in the reasonableness of the standards that
govern the criminal justice system. “[A]lthough the
[exclusionary] rule is thought to deter unlawful police
activity in part through the nurturing of respect for Fourth
Amendment values, if applied indiscriminately it may
well have the opposite effect of generating disrespect for
the law and the administration of justice.” Stone v.
Powell, 428 U.S., at 490-491, 96 S.Ct., at 3050-3051. As
THE CHIEF JUSTICE observed in his separate opinion in
Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S., at 490, 96 S.Ct., at 3050: “The
disparity in particular cases between the error committed
by the police officer and the windfall afforded a guilty
defendant by application of the rule is contrary to the idea
of proportionality that is essential to the concept of
justice.”
For these reasons, “application of the [exclusionary] rule
has been restricted to those areas where its remedial
objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” United
States *259 v. Calandra, supra, 414 U.S., at 348, 94
S.Ct., at 620.14 The reasoning of our recent cases strongly
suggests that there is insufficient justification to suppress
evidence at a criminal trial which was seized in the
reasonable belief that the Fourth Amendment was not
violated. The deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule
**2344 has never been established by empirical evidence,
despite *260 repeated attempts. United States v. Janis,
428 U.S., at 449-453, 96 S.Ct., at 3029-3031; Irvine v.
California, 347 U.S. 128, 136, 74 S.Ct. 381, 385, 98
L.Ed. 561 (1954). But accepting that the rule deters some
police misconduct, it is apparent as a matter of logic that
there is little if any deterrence when the rule is invoked to
suppress evidence obtained by a police officer acting in
the reasonable belief that his conduct did not violate the
Fourth Amendment. As we initially observed in Michigan
v. Tucker, 417 U.S., at 447, 94 S.Ct., at 2365, and
reiterated in United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S., at 539, 95
S.Ct., at 2318:
58
“The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule
necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in
willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has
deprived the defendant of some right. By refusing to
admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the
courts hope to instill in those particular investigating
officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of
care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official
action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the
deterrence rationale loses much of its force.”
The Court in Peltier continued, 422 U.S., at 542, 95 S.Ct.,
at 2320:
“If the purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter
unlawful police conduct then evidence obtained
from a search should be suppressed only if it can
be said that the law enforcement officer had
knowledge, or may properly be charged with
knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional
under the Fourth Amendment.”
See also United States v. Janis, 428 U.S., at 459, n. 35, 96
S.Ct., at 3034, n. 35 (“[T]he officers here were clearly
acting in good faith ... a factor that the Court has
recognized reduces significantly the potential deterrent
effect of exclusion.”) The deterrent value of the
exclusionary sanction is most effective when officers
engage in searches and seizures under circumstances “so
lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official
belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Brown v.
Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-611, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2265-
2266, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (POWELL, J., concurring).
On the *261 other hand, when officers perform their tasks
in the good-faith belief that their action comported with
constitutional requirements, the deterrent function of the
exclusionary rule is so minimal, if not non-existent, that
the balance clearly favors the rule’s modification.15
*262 **2345 B
There are several types of Fourth Amendment violations
that may be said to fall under the rubric of “good faith.”
“There will be those occasions where the trial or appellate
court will disagree on the issue of probable cause, no
matter how reasonable the grounds for arrest appeared to
the officer and though reasonable men could easily differ
on the question. It also happens that after the events at
issue have occurred, the law may change, dramatically or
ever so slightly, but in any event sufficiently to require
the trial judge to hold that there was not probable cause to
make the arrest and to seize the evidence offered by the
prosecution....” Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S., at 539-540, 96