The Warren Court (1953-1969) shifted the Supreme Court to a very liberal way of thinking and brought on many changes in the area of individual rights and criminal procedure. Although these changes were for the better not everyone agreed with what the Warren Court did. When Chief Justice Earl Warren stepped down in 1969, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger stepped in to take his place. Burger's underlying theme was It's adherence to the principle that criminal defendants, in claiming violations of their due process rights, need to bear most of the responsibility of showing that police when beyond the law in the performance of their duties. This was definitely a more conservative view than that of the Warren court. Burger did not agree with some of the things the Warren Court did. One of his main concerns was with the exclusionary rule that was established by the Warren Court.
             The Burger court began to chip away at the strict application of the exclusionary rule originally set forth in the Weeks and Silverthorne cases. In 1983 in the case of Illinois v Gates the court was asked to modify the exclusionary rule to permit the use in court of evidence that officers had seized in "reasonable good faith." The court, however, chose not to address the issue at that time. But one year later in the case of U.S. v Leon (1984), the court recognized what has come to be called the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. One problem that people had with this ruling was what did "good Faith" mean? The Burger courts interpretation of good faith was "Any evidence that officers had seized in reasonable good faith. This means if an officer is given a false search warrant but does not know that it is false, any evidence he collects can be used in the court. This landmark ruling shifted things from a liberal, individual rights perspective to a much more conservative public-order perspective by the court.
             The swing towards conservatism, which our coun...