Good Evening, Class,

I do not believe that broad exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule should be made because it exists to protect citizens' Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful searches and seizures. Without it, law enforcement could ignore constitutional safeguards and still benefit from illegally obtained evidence. However, some limited exceptions exist to balance justice with practical realities. The Good Faith Exception allows evidence to be admitted if officers reasonably relied on a warrant later found invalid. This exception is valid because it prevents punishing officers for honest mistakes, though it risks weakening judicial oversight if applied too broadly. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine states evidence can be admitted if it would have been found legally anyway. This is reasonable in ensuring justice isn't derailed by technical errors, but it can be problematic when courts speculate about what "would have" occurred rather than what actually did. The Independent Source Doctrine permits evidence initially discovered unlawfully but later obtained through an untainted, lawful source. This is fair because it ensures illegally obtained searches do not automatically nullify lawfully gathered proof. Overall, exceptions must remain narrowly tailored. If misapplied, they risk undermining constitutional rights and weakening judicial integrity, which could erode public trust in the justice system.

in one paragraph , than your classmate for his well elaborated post and add an additional input from a scholarly source using APA in-text citation