of guilt obtained through violations of the Fourth Amendment." United States v. Ienco, 182 F.3d 517, 526 (7th Cir. 1999). However, "just because a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred does not mean the exclusionary rule applies." Dearborn, 327 Wis. 2d 252, ¶ 35. Rather, we are to apply the exclusionary rule only as a "last resort," when doing so will "deter police misconduct and most appropriately when the deterrent benefits outweigh the substantial costs to the truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives of the criminal justice system." Id., ¶¶ 35, 38. ¶ 15. The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule dictates that the exclusionary rule "is not to be applied when the officers conducting an illegal search 'acted in the objectively reasonable belief that (Tex. Ct. App. 2002) (<HOLDING>). 5 At the time the court commissioner signed
holding that canine sniff not a search under the fourth amendment holding that a drug sniff outside the front door of the defendants residence was not a fourth amendment search because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy at the entrance to property that is open to the public including the front porch holding that a dog sniff outside the defendants door in his apartment building was not a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment so long as the police were lawfully present in the hallway when the search occurred holding a dog sniff outside the defendants front door was not a fourth amendment search holding that a drugdetection dog sniff outside a garage door at a home was not a search under the fourth amendment