RB> That is the official reason for the good faith exception, and perhaps
 RB> it was  developed in 'good faith.' That's not the issue. The issue is
 RB> that in real life  court, the exception gives a bias to the police,
 RB> a bias that shouldn't exist. In effect, what it says is that routine
 RB> and constitutional procedure can be overrided because the cop is
 RB> acting in 'good faith'
This exception doesn't deal with routine anything. It deals with technical
issues that are shown to be confusing and an honest technical error on the
part of the officer. This is the argument for granting the good faith
exception, and there is nothing routine about it. The good faith exception is
not automatically granted, it must be argued in each case.
There is disagreement between lawyers about many issues involved in a good
faith exception case, so how hard would it be for a cop to make an honest
mistake? There are even opposing opinions and rulings from different courts
about many technical issues. Again, how hard would it be for a cop to make an
honest mistake? There are thousands of loopholes that allow criminals to go
free. This is simply one loophole that was partially closed, and rightfully
so.
Tom Rightmer - A Victims' Rights Advocate
... Fine day to throw a party.  Throw him as far as you can.
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
---------------