Court Opinion

ID: 9645559
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:28:23.56898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:27.914599
License: Public Domain

GARIBALDI, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority’s adoption of the Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527, reh’g denied, 463 U.S. 1237, 104 S.Ct. 33, 77 L.Ed.2d 1453 (1983), totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine the validity of a search warrant under Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. I dissent from the majority’s failure to recognize, as a matter of state law, the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule *175set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).
I consider the dominant justification of the exclusionary rule to be the deterrence of police conduct that violates Article I, paragraph 7 of the New Jersey Constitution. The majority, however, transforms this judicially-created remedy into a state constitutional right. It fears that adoption of a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule will undermine the constitutionally-guaranteed standard of probable cause. This position strikes an improper balance between the valid goal of protecting individual rights under the state constitution and the public’s right to have those who transgress the law brought to justice. “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” Eleuteri v. Rickman, 26 N.J. 506, 512 (1958), quoting People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (Ct.App.), cert, den., 270 U.S. 657, 46 S.Ct. 353, 70 L.Ed. 784 (1926). A limited good faith exception more properly accommodates the legitimate interests of the public in an effective criminal justice system without sacrificing the individual rights protected by our Constitution. Adopting the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule reflects not a lesser concern with safeguarding an individual’s constitutional rights but a deeper appreciation of the high costs incurred when probative, reliable evidence is barred because of investigative error.
Moreover, while it is undisputed that a state may provide greater protection to individual rights than is found in the United States Constitution, a departure from the federal constitution should be supported by sound historical or policy reasons. State v. Hunt, 91 N.J. 338, 345 (1982). Consistent state and federal rulings are crucial to the rational development of criminal law and the guidance of our law-enforcement officials. Only a strong state purpose would justify divergence in this very sensitive area. An examination of the New Jersey Constitution, statutes, and cases reveals no such purpose, and in fact leads to the conclusion that adoption of the Leon and Sheppard limited good faith exception is consistent with New Jersey law.
*176I
Since Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), the Supreme Court, recognizing the high cost to the criminal justice system of indiscriminately suppressing all probative evidence, has applied a balancing approach that has gradually eroded the scope of the exclusionary rule. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976); United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S.Ct. 2313, 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 89 S.Ct. 961, 22 L.Ed.2d 176, reh’g denied, 394 U.S. 939, 89 S.Ct. 1177, 22 L.Ed.2d 475 (1969). In those cases, the Court held that the exclusionary rule is a judicial remedy that must be sensitive to the costs and benefits of its imposition. In United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677, and its companion case, Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984), the Court specifically adopted a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.
In United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. at 922, 104 S.Ct. at 3421, 86 L.Ed.2d at 698, the Court concluded that the “marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs [to the criminal justice system] of exclusion.” To understand fully the impact of the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases one must recognize that unlike other exclusionary rules involving the fifth and sixth amendments — which often implicate concerns about the inherent reliability and truthworthiness of the excluded evidence — this rule excludes evidence that is typically reliable and often the most probative information bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. As Justice Black emphasized in his dissent in Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217, 237, 89 S.Ct. 1068, 1079, 22 L.Ed.2d 227, 243 (1969):
*177A claim of illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment is crucially different from many other constitutional rights; ordinarily the evidence seized can in no way have been rendered untrustworthy by the means of its seizure and indeed often this evidence alone establishes beyond virtually any shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty.
In Leon, the Court acknowledged some of the substantial social costs of applying the exclusionary rule: the rule impedes the truth-finding functions of the jury and judges; allows some guilty defendants to go free or receive reduced sentences due to plea bargains; and, through its indiscriminate application, may generate disrespect for the administration of justice.1 468 U.S. at 906-09, 104 S.Ct. at 3412-14, 82 L.Ed.2d at 688-89. The Court stated:
Particularly when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith or their transgressions have been minor, the magnitude of the benefit conferred on such guilty defendants offends basic concepts of the criminal justice system, [Id.]
The good faith exception seeks to rectify this disparity between the error committed by the police officer and the windfall afforded a guilty defendant.
*178Recognizing the extreme importance of protecting an individual’s right to be free from unreasonable seizures, the Court in Leon did not abolish, but merely modified, the exelusionary rule to provide that
[suppression ... remains an appropriate remedy if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth---- The exception ... will also not apply in cases where the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role ...; in such circumstances, no reasonably well-trained officer should rely on the warrant. Nor would an officer manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” ... Finally, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient — i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized — that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid, [citations omitted.] [468 U.S. at 923-24, 104 S.Ct. at 3421-22, 82 L.Ed.2d at 698-99.]
The Court concluded that suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis. In each instance, the court must weigh the costs and benefits of applying the rule. In short, probative evidence should not be suppressed where its exclusion will serve no useful, recognized purpose.
The foundation of the majority’s decision is its assumption that Leon’s limited good faith exception will tend to undermine the motivation of law-enforcement officers to comply with the constitutional requirement of probable cause. The majority fails to recognize that indiscriminate application of the exclusionary rule may actually hinder the educative and deterrent functions of the suppression remedy. See Kaplan, “The Limits of the Exclusionary Rule,” 26 Stan.L.Rev. 1027, 1050 (1974) (“Instead of disciplining their employees, police departments generally have adopted the attitude that the courts cannot be satisfied, that the rules are hopelessly complicated and subject to change, and that the suppression of evidence is the courts’ problem and not the departments’.”).
The good-faith exception fashioned in Leon does not reduce a police officer’s incentive to respect the Constitution, because it *179is triggered only when an officer’s conduct is objectively reasonable.
If evidence is suppressed only when a law enforcement officer should have known that he was violating the Fourth Amendment, police departments may look more seriously at the officer’s misconduct when suppression is invoked. Moreover, by providing that evidence gathered in good-faith reliance on a reasonable rule will not be excluded, a good-faith exception creates an incentive for police departments to formulate rules governing activities of officers in the search-and-seizure area. Many commentators, including proponents of the exclusionary sanction, recognize that the formulation of such rules by police departments, and the training necessary to implement these guidelines in practice, are perhaps the most effective means of protecting Fourth Amendment rights. See K. Davis, Discretionary Justice (1969); McGowan, “Rule-Making and the Police,” 70 Mich.L.Rev. 659 (1972); Amsterdam, “Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment,” 50 Minn.L.Rev. 349, 416-431 (1974).
[Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 260-61 n. 15,103 S.Ct. at 2344-45 n. 15, 76 L.Ed.2d at 563 n. 15 (White, J., concurring).]
If a police officer acting in an objectively reasonable manner secures a warrant from a judge and in good faith believes he has complied with constitutional requirements, what more can we expect of him? Law-enforcement officers must constantly make judgments about whether there is probable cause to make an arrest.
Is there reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that a particular suspect has committed it? Sometimes the historical facts are disputed or are otherwise in doubt. In other situations the facts may be clear so far as they are known, yet the question of probable cause remains. In still others there are special worries about the reliability of secondhand information such as that coming from informants. In any of these situations, which occur repeatedly, when the officer is convinced that he has probable cause to arrest he will very likely make the arrest. [Stone v. Powell, supra, 428 U.S. at 538-39, 96 S.Ct. at 3073, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1113 (White, J., dissenting).]
In most of these decisions, the police officer determines that there is sufficient probable cause to make an arrest. This is the case particularly when a warrant is issued and reviewed by an officer’s superiors, as now required in New Jersey, and by a judge. Nevertheless, one need consider only the many difficulties the courts themselves have had in defining standards for what constitutes “probable cause” and the scope of the exclusionary rule to realize that there will be occasions when the police officer, his superiors, and the judge will guess wrong.
*180[T]here will be those occasions where the trial or appellate court will disagree [with the police officer] on the issue of probable cause, no matter how reasonable the grounds for arrest appeared to the officer and though reasonable men could easily differ on the question. It also happens that after the events at issue have occurred, the law may change, dramatically or ever so slightly, but in any event sufficiently to require the trial judge to hold that there was not probable cause to make the arrest and to seize the evidence offered by the prosecution.
********
It is true that in such cases the courts have ultimately determined that in their view the officer was mistaken; but it is also true that in making constitutional judgments under the general language used in some parts of our Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment, there is much room for disagreement among judges, each of whom is convinced that both he and his colleagues are reasonable men. Surely when this Court divides five to four on issues of probable cause, it is not tenable to conclude that the officer was at fault or acted unreasonably in making the arrest.
[Stone v. Powell, supra, 428 U.S. at 539-40, 96 S.Ct. at 3073, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1114 (White, J., dissenting).]
In such circumstances police officers have acted as reasonable officers would and should act, and as the public expects them to act. When it turns out that they have acted mistakenly, but in good faith and on reasonable grounds, the exclusion of such evidence cannot act as a deterrent. “The officers, if they do their duty, will act in similar fashion in similar circumstances in the future____” Id. at 540, 96 S.Ct. at 3073, 49 L.Ed.2d at 1114. In such cases, application of the exclusionary rule will result only in keeping relevant and probative evidence from the jury, thereby substantially impairing or aborting the trial.
I do not share the fears of the opponents of the good faith exception that law-enforcement officers will lack necessary motivation to secure sufficient information to issue warrants for probable cause and that judges, in reviewing such warrants, will act as mere rubber stamps. A warrant from a judge is a safeguard designed to protect individual rights and insure that a reasonable basis for a search exists. See State v. Kasabucki, 52 N.J. 110, 115 (1968). It makes no sense to suggest that a police officer would deliberately appear before a judge with an *181inadequate affidavit, knowing that the warrant, even if granted in the first instance, might fail to withstand a later challenge before a second judge. Succinctly stated, the warrant requirement is based on the assumption that the judge will act properly and in so doing will cause law-enforcement authorities to act properly.2
I do not presume that either the law-enforcement officers or the judges of the State of New Jersey will abdicate their responsibility to apply the law. The “Policy Statement of the Attorney General of New Jersey and County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey Regarding Prosecutorial Review of Search Warrant Applications,” issued in February 1985, should dispel such concerns. The Policy Statement was issued after the Gates and Leon decisions, refuting any suggestion that these cases will reduce scrutiny of search warrants by law enforcement personnel.
I think that the majority’s fears of the good faith exception in this regard are unfounded. Nonetheless,
[i]f it should emerge from experience that, contrary to our expectations, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule results in a material change in police compliance with the Fourth Amendment, we shall have to reconsider what we have undertaken here. [United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. at 928, 104 S.Ct. at 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d at 702 (Blackmun, J., concurring).]
No such change in police behavior has yet occurred. Until it does, I believe it is better to allow the admission of evidence seized by an officer acting with an objectively reasonable good *182faith belief that his conduct satisfied constitutional requirements. In such a case, the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule is “so minimal, if not nonexistent, that the balance clearly favors the rule’s modification.” Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at 261, 103 S.Ct. at 2344, 76 L.Ed. at 563 (White, J., concurring).
II
There are no independent state constitutional grounds to justify our divergence from federal law in this area. In fact, the “divergence criteria” developed in State v. Hunt, supra, 91 N.J. at 364-68 (Handler, J., concurring), and adopted in State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39 (1983), offer compelling reasons why the good faith exception is consistent with New Jersey precedents, practice, and traditions. Furthermore, the underlying reasons expressed by the Court in Leon for adopting the good faith exception have long been part of New Jersey law.
Initially, New Jersey courts were outspoken in their disregard for the exclusionary rule. From the rule’s inception, we have recognized that its dominant purpose is to deter over-zealous law-enforcement officers from making unreasonable searches and seizures.3 Nevertheless, the courts early recognized that the practical effect of the federal rule “is not to punish the individual who has violated the constitutional provision by making an unreasonable search and seizure, but to shield the criminal and penalize the people of this state by suppressing evidence tending to prove an offense ‘against its peace and dignity.’ ” State v. Black, 5 N.J.Misc. 48, 50 (Quarter Sessions 1926). In Black, the court drew heavily from *183Professor Wigmore’s scathing criticism of the rule, which labeled the exclusionary remedy “indirect and unnatural.” According to Wigmore, “Our [federal courts’] way of upholding the constitution is not to strike at the man who breaks it, but to let off somebody else who broke something else.” 4 J. Wigmore, Evidence (2d ed.) § 2183, 2184, 2259(b), 2264, quoted in Black, supra, 5 N.J.Misc. at 51. Since “[t]he administration of the law in New Jersey has always been practical and never over-sensitive to shield an accused,” id. at 52, the court in Black refused to adopt the “new exception” to the general rule of admissibility.
The rule of admissibility was thus firmly in place when the delegates to New Jersey’s Constitutional Convention assembled in the summer of 1947. An amendment proposed at the Convention would have added the following sentence to Article I, paragraph 7:
Nothing obtained in violation hereof shall be received into evidence.
The delegates debated the merits of the exclusionary rule based on the federal experience, and defeated the proposed amendment by a final vote of 45 to 26. See 1 Convention Proceedings Record 598-608 (August 19, 1947). While the legislative history of the fourth amendment4 is silent with respect to the exclusionary rule, the rule was specifically rejected by the Framers of the New Jersey Constitution. This is compelling evidence that the rule is not a part of our constitution but at most a judicial remedy.
Even after Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782 (1949), the Court rejected the exclusionary rule and continued to rely on the general rule of admissibility. In Eleuteri v. Richman, supra, 26 N.J. at 513, Chief Justice Weintraub, writing for a unanimous Court, emphasized that the dominant purpose of the rule is to deter unreasonable searches *184and seizures. We expressed the same concerns as those expressed by the Supreme Court in Leon about the high cost of the exclusionary rule:
The issue arises only when the evidence is incriminating and thus, in its immediate impact, the rule of exclusion benefits only the guilty. Unlike the extorted confession, to which an analogy is frequently drawn, the evidence illegally seized is not the fruit of official wrong; it is the criminal’s own work product which could have been seized lawfully and used against him. If such evidence and “the fruit of the poisonous tree” are suppressed, “The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 150 N.E. 585, 587 (Ct.App.1926), certiorari denied, 270 U.S. 657, 46 S.Ct. 353, 70 L.Ed. 784 (1926). Two wrongs go unpunished at the expense of society. 8 Wigmore, supra, § 2184, p. 40. Unlike the Federal Government for which the exclusionary rule was conceived, the states must contend with many more crimes of violence. The stakes are different.
[26 N.J. at 512.]
We have long recognized that the exclusionary rule should be applied only in the presence of culpable police misconduct. See Eleuteri v. Rickman, supra, 26 N.J. at 514 (“It is one thing to condemn the product of an arrogant defiance of the Constitution; it is another to impose the sanction when the official intends to respect his oath of office but is found to be mistaken, let us say, by the margin of a single vote.”); State v. Gerardo, 53 N.J. 261, 267 (1969) (holding that exclusion was not mandated by the fourth amendment since, “important as it is in our society, [it] does not call for imposition of judicial sanctions where enforcing officers have followed the law with such punctilious regard as they have here”); State v. Zito, 54 N.J. 206, 211, 213 (1969) (concluding that an officers’ reliance on a statute providing that a person’s inability to “give a good account of himself” is prima facie evidence of illegal purpose was not “unreasonable” within the meaning of the fourth amendment. “Surely,” the court noted, “it is not arrogant of an officer to abide by the statutes of his State. On the contrary, it would be presumptuous of him to sit in constitutional judgment.” In the circumstances the court found that suppression of the fruits “would be a windfall to the criminal, and serve no laudable end....”); State v. Bisaccia, 58 N.J. 586, 589, 591 (1971) (a deliberately false judgment of acquittal *185“debases the judicial process” and breeds contempt for the deterrent thrust of the criminal law. “To justify so serious an insult to the judicial process, some compensating gain should be incontestable.” Moreover, we remained skeptical as to whether the rule has any genuine deterrent effect at all, but especially where, as in that case, the police had acted in good faith and “without a trace of insolence.”).
In State v. Bruzzese, 94 N.J. 210 (1983), we recently reaffirmed that the touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness. We held that a police officer’s search and seizure would be considered reasonable only if it conformed to objectively reasonable police standards. This is the same test established by the Court in Leon. Likewise, in Bruzzese we emphasized that the application of an objective standard is necessary to safeguard the privacy rights of our citizens, since the “requirement of reasonableness is not one without teeth.” Id. at 226; see also State v. Guerra, 93 N.J. 146, 152 (1983) (“[I]f the validity of a search can be sustained independently on objective grounds demonstrating reasonableness, the existence of other defects that do not derogate from the overall objective reasonableness of the search or impugn the integrity of the judicial process should not be relied upon to invalidate the search.”) (emphasis added).
Moreover, we have recognized, as did the Court in Leon, that the reasonableness of a police officer’s conduct is to be evaluated in a practical and realistic manner. We have long acknowledged the difficult problems law-enforcement officials face concerning probable cause and realized that
[t]he officer’s statements must be looked at in a common sense way without a grudging or negative attitude. There must be an awareness that few policemen have legal training and that the material submitted to demonstrate probable cause may not be described with the technical nicety one would expect of a member of the bar. Moreover, the judge should take into account the specialized experience and work-a-day knowledge of policemen. State v. Contursi, 44 N.J. 422, 431 (1965). The facts asserted must be tested by the practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonably prudent and experienced police officers act.
[State v. Kasabucki, supra, 52 N.J. at 117.]
*186We encourage police officers to seek warrants, since the review of a warrant by a neutral and detached judge offers a further safeguard to the public against unreasonable police action. As Justice Francis eloquently wrote in State v. Kasabucki, supra, 52 N.J. at 115-16:
When the police officer does not rely on his own evaluation of facts, but submits them to the independent judgment of a judicial officer for a determination as to whether they add up to probable cause, a search pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge cannot be equated with “insolence in office” or abuse of the officer’s police power, nor can it be said reasonably that the citizen’s Fourth Amendment security rests only in the discretion of the police. Thus when the adequacy of the facts offered to show probable cause is challenged after a search made pursuant to a warrant, and their adequacy appears to be marginal, the doubt should ordinarily be resolved by sustaining the search. That is because the warrant provides clear evidence of the legitimacy of the officer’s purpose. The decisions bespeak the preference accorded a search authorized after the facts and inferences therefrom have been subjected to neutral judicial consideration and found to constitute probable cause for it. [Citations omitted.]
The foregoing review of New Jersey case law demonstrates that New Jersey has no historical attachment to the exclusionary rule. In fact, the cases show that we have, in essence, long recognized a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Thus, I disagree with the majority that the exclusionary rule has been embedded in our jurisprudence for the last twenty-five years. Ante at 149.5
I do not think that the public or law-enforcement personnel will perceive that the Court is reducing its vigilance in protecting the state constitutional rights of an individual if a prosecu*187tor is allowed to introduce evidence obtained by an officer acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a neutral and detached judge, but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause. Indeed, unless the officer and the judge act in a reasonably objective matter, the evidence will be suppressed. In a sense, the good faith exception is a contest not between the state and the individual, but between two individuals — one seeking protection against a police officer’s overzealous conduct in conducting an unreasonable search and the other seeking a police officer’s protection from criminal attack. I perceive that the public will view the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule as a sensible accommodation between protecting an individual’s constitutional rights and punishing the guilty.
Ill
We turn now to an application of the good faith exception to this case. Whether the policeman’s conduct here was that of an objectively reasonable policeman is a very close question. He was a new officer, drafting his first warrant, which was not reviewed by any of his superiors. He and another detective conducted an independent investigation for three hours. Certainly, under the present Policy Statement of the Attorney General and County Prosecutors Association of New Jersey, there would have to be an internal screening of the warrant by either the Attorney General’s or the County Prosecutor’s Staff. Moreover, considering the scope of the independent investigation done by the officers in Leon, there is serious question whether there was sufficient independent investigation in this case. Nevertheless, the courts below, as well as the majority, believe that the officer acted in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner. I would abide by their decision and therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and permit introduction of the evidence under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. In the future, however, in the absence of a significant independent investigation and pre-application *188screening, I would not hold similar conduct by a police officer to be objectively reasonable.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and STEIN — 6.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part — Justice GARIBALDI — 1.

 Empirical data on the effects of the exclusionary rule on the disposition of felony warrants are inconclusive. See United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. at 907-08 n. 6, 104 S.Ct. at 3413 n. 6, 82 L.Ed.2d at 688 n. 6; 468 U.S. at 949-52, 104 S.Ct. at 3441-42, 82 L.Ed.2d at 716-17 (Brennan, J., dissenting). A survey conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts with respect to suppression motions in ten New Jersey counties during the six-month period of December 1, 1985, to May 31, 1986 discloses that during this period, 80% of the 1082 motions filed involved controlled dangerous substances and 10% involved weapons. Of all the motions filed, 540 or roughly half were disposed of in the following manner: 49% were withdrawn (usually after a plea that mooted the suppression issue); 40% were denied; 4% were dismissed; and 7% were granted (all of which involved searches made without a warrant). The evidence seized in these cases included controlled dangerous substances in 75% of the cases, weapons in 17.1%, and alcohol in the remaining 7.3%. The study suggests that of the estimated 4,500 motions filed in New Jersey annually, approximately 300 are granted.
The study also analyzed the granted motions in five of the ten counties for an additional six-month period and in two of the counties for an additional one-year period. Only one of the 44 suppression motions that were granted during this period involved a search made pursuant to a warrant.

 The survey conducted by the Administrative Office of the Courts regarding suppression motions, supra at 177 n.1, supports the assumption that judges, in reviewing and granting search warrants, are effectively protecting the constitutional rights of private citizens. The study examined the files on 82 suppression motions that were granted. Only one of these cases involved a search executed with a warrant. The majority interprets these statistics to indicate that the exclusionary rule "poses no significant threat to law-enforcement efforts” Ante at 152. I interpret these statistics to indicate that judges are acting properly in reviewing search warrant applications. Under such circumstances there is no reason to think that a good faith exception will encourage judges to ignore the law.

 For recent cases reaffirming this principle, see Delguidice v. New Jersey Racing Comm., 100 N.J. 79, 85 (1985) ("Deterrence of future unlawful police conduct is the 'prime purpose’ of the exclusionary rule, if not the sole one,’ ” quoting Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984); State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 406 (1981) (the exclusionary rule is "meant solely to deter illegal police conduct").

 The text of the fourth amendment and Article I, paragraph 7, of the New Jersey Constitution are nearly identical. Neither contains any reference to the exclusionary rule.

 State v. Macri, 39 N.J. 250 (1963), and State v. Valentin, 36 N.J. 41 (1961), are cited by the majority as support for this position. In State v. Macri, Justice Weintraub, in his concurring opinion, pointed out that the affidavit was so palpably devoid of any basis for evaluation that the magistrate’s order was no more than a rubber stamp of the police officer’s action. Hence, the good faith exception would not be applicable. In State v. Valentin, we remanded the case for reconsideration of a motion to suppress a shotgun recovered in a warrant-less search so that the prosecutor who had not submitted proof respecting the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure could do so, because "whether a particular search and seizure are unreasonable depends upon the circumstances under which the police officers acted." Id. at 43.