Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids

Although its purpose is laudable, the exclusionary rule, which forbids a court to consider evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights, has unduly hampered law-enforcement efforts. Even when the rights violation was a minor or purely technical one, turning on a detail of procedure rather than on the abrogation of some fundamental liberty, and even when it has been clear that the police officers were acting in good faith, the evidence obtained has been considered tainted under this rule and may not even by introduced. In consequence, defendants who were undoubtedly guilty have been set free, perhaps to steal, rape, or murder again.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author would most likely endorse which of the following proposals?


(A) Change of the exclusionary rule to admit evidence obtained by police officers acting in good faith

(B) A constitutional amendment curtailing some of the protections traditionally afforded those accused of a crime

(C) A statute limiting the application of the exclusionary rule to cases involving minor criminal offenses

(D) Change of the exclusionary rule to allow any evidence, no matter how obtained, to be introduced in court

(E) A constitutional amendment allowing police officers to obtain vital evidence by any means necessary when in pursuit of a known criminal