"Law Talkin' Mike," a prosecutor in South Carolina had this to say about the Supreme Court's possible abolishment of the exclusionary rule (that prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used against a criminal defendant):

"Horror stories about how the exclusionary rule lets awful criminals get away on technicalities is one of the great urban legends of the criminal justice system. I've been either a prosecutor or a public defender for 15 years and I can think of only a small handful of cases where real bad people got away with something because of a minor police error. There is already a good faith exception that saves law enforcement from purely innocent mistakes. And inevitable discovery (we'd have found it anyway) saves other screw ups.

It does happen once in a great while and maybe there is room for some enlargement of the good faith exception, but a wholesale rejection of the exclusionary rule would be stupid and unnecessary. Plus, it would overturn years of established precedent, something I thought conservatives were against.