请教各位大牛一道逻辑题。

Some people assert that prosecutors should be allowed to introduce illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials if the judge and jury can be persuaded that the arresting officer was not aware of violating or did not intend to violate the law while seizing the evidence. This proposed "good-faith exception" would weaken everyone's constitutional protection, lead to less careful police practices, and promote lying by law enforcement officers in court.

The argument above for maintaining the prohibition against illegally obtained evidence assumes that

正确答案是

the prohibition now deters some unlawful searches and seizures

请问这题目到底是什么意思呢？翻来覆去看了几遍还是没搞懂。发现自己阅读能力好差啊

一些人声称：如果法官和陪审团能够很好的被说服，在 arresting officer 收集证据的时候他们并没有意识到或者并不是故意的违反法律的，检举人应该被允许呈上非法得到的证据。 可见这项提议是不可行的。这会削弱每个人受宪法保护的一些权利，导致了政策执行时候的掉以轻心，还有在法庭上受到一些压力而作伪证。

问assumption:the prohibition now deters some unlawful searches and seizures:说该项禁止已经阻止了很所非法的搜查和取证所以才会导致一些人assert