The Development and Consequences of the "Good Faith" Exception to the Exclusionary Rule and the Qualified "Good Faith" Immunity from Liability Under Section 1983

Authors

Philip M. Coffin III, University of Maine School of Law
Paul F. Driscoll, University of Maine School of Law

Abstract

The remedies fashioned to redress violations of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution continue to be the subject of much judicial, legislative, and scholarly inquiry. In striking the balance between the need to protect individual freedom and the need to protect society from criminal activity, the Supreme Court and Congress have developed two principal remedies for fourth amendment violations: the exclusionary rule and civil actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or under theories of constitutional tort. on the development of both of these remedies it is assumed that their effectiveness is the true measure of fourth amendment liberties. The fourth amendment is a nullity if there is no effective remedy for its violation. Hence, this Comment rejects the idea that fourth amendment liberties exist independently of remedies for their violation.

First Page

325

Recommended Citation

Philip M. Coffin III & Paul F. Driscoll, The Development and Consequences of the "Good Faith" Exception to the Exclusionary Rule and the Qualified "Good Faith" Immunity from Liability Under Section 1983, 33 Me. L. Rev. 325 (1981).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol33/iss2/5