Which principle does the good faith exception uphold in criminal law?

The good faith exception in criminal law allows for certain evidence that may have been obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights to still be admissible in court if the law enforcement officers acted in good faith. This principle is rooted in the belief that excluding evidence obtained through honest mistakes or minor procedural errors does not serve the interests of justice.

When police conduct their investigations under the assumption that they are acting within the bounds of the law, the good faith exception recognizes that not every slight misstep should lead to the exclusion of potentially valuable evidence. This exception aims to balance the rights of individuals against the needs of law enforcement and the judicial process by acknowledging that it is unreasonable to expect officers to have perfect knowledge of the law at all times.

This framework fosters a more pragmatic approach to evidence law, allowing the courts to consider the overall context in which evidence was obtained rather than strictly following procedural technicalities. As such, the admission of evidence under the good faith exception can be seen as a means to uphold procedural justice while still respecting the integrity of the judicial process.