Good Faith, Bad Idea

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars “unreasonable searches and seizures,” which include virtually all searches without a warrant, particularly of someone’s home. In recent years, in the cases of Payton vs. New York (1980) and Michigan vs. Clifford (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the special protection guaranteed to the home under the Fourth Amendment.

But on Tuesday, by a 6-3 vote, the court changed its mind. In the case of Maryland vs. Garrison the court ruled that heroin seized during a warrantless search of a Baltimore man’s apartment could be used against him because the police had made a “good-faith” mistake in searching his home by accident. The warrant under which the search was conducted was for an adjoining apartment that shared a common entryway with the apartment that was searched. No matter, the court said. The evidence is admissible, and Harold Garrison’s 15-year prison term is valid.

True, the circumstances made this a close call. But all law, good and bad, is based on close calls, and this one is a most unwelcome extension of the “good-faith exception” to the exclusionary rule that the court first enunciated in 1984. The whole idea of a “good-faith exception” flies in the face of the constitutional protections under which we live. If the police act improperly, the fruits of their improper actions--namely, the evidence--should not be admissible in a criminal proceeding.

Strict enforcement of the exclusionary rule is the only way to ensure that the police will act responsibly and in accordance with the law. The police can almost always get around a search-warrant requirement by saying that they were acting in good faith and that a mere mistake should not bar the successful prosecution of a malefactor.

We are not opposed to sending guilty people to prison, but we are opposed to allowing the police to ignore or wink at constitutional rights. The only way to keep the police honest in this circumstance is to absolutely refuse to allow evidence seized in an illegal search to be admitted in court regardless of whether the police acted in error or by design.

The “good-faith exception” was a bad idea in the first place, and broadening it is an even worse idea. Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood Marshall had the right idea in dissent on Tuesday in urging that the conviction of Garrison be overturned. The court should be protecting the rights of individuals against the unlimited power of the state, not turning its back on constitutional rights in order to send a guilty person to jail.