way—by removing the incentive to disregard it.”). Plistorically, the Court also viewed the exclusionary rule as preserving the integrity of the judicial process by banishing evidence secured only because government agents violated the Constitution. Elkins, 364 U.S. at 222-23; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 394 (“To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.”)- The twin objectives of deterring unconstitutional searches and preserving judicial integrity made the exclusionary rule an essential remedy for Fourth Amendment violations. See Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 393; cf. Leon, 468 U.S. at 905-06 (<HOLDING>). Despite its undeniably laudable purpose, the
holding that the exclusionary rule under the fourth amendment applies to civil forfeiture proceedings recognizing good faith exception to fourth amendment exclusionary rule recognizing that court precedent has implied that the exclusionary rule is a necessary corollary of the fourth amendment recognizing an implied fourth amendment action for damages holding that fourth amendment claims are not cognizable on habeas review because the fourth amendment exclusionary rule does not relate to the accuracy of the factfinding process