Supreme Court then summarized the operative rule for application of the exclusionary rule: To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system. As laid out in our cases, the exclusionary rule serves to deter deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct, or in some circumstances recurring or systemic negligence. Id. ¶ 82. The United States Supreme Court's decision in Herring has been widely seen as establishing broad principles that dramatically narrow application of the exclusionary rule. See, e.g., Russell L. Weaver, The Irrelevancy of the Fourth Amendment in the Roberts Court, 85 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 191, 203-04 (2010) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 83. What says the majority about these
recognizing that the broad language in herring signals a dramatic restriction in the application of the exclusionary rule and represents a significant recasting of modern exclusionary rule theory holding that a violation of  6103 does not require the application of the exclusionary rule holding that exclusionary rule applies to civil forfeiture proceedings holding judicial exclusionary rule inapplicable to administrative license revocation proceedings but acknowledging application of statutory exclusionary rules where applicable recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule