According to Dripps (2001), "Few debates in American law are as sustained, or as bitter, as the debate over the exclusionary rule. Critics have attacked the exclusion of unconstitutionally obtained evidence for compromising the pursuit of truth in adjudication, for exceeding the constitutional authority of the judiciary, and for fostering police perjury and judicial hypocrisy" (p. 1). Proponents of the exclusionary rule maintain that there exists a fundamental need for some type of protections against constitutional violations, and argue that the exclusionary rules provide a superior alternative to reliance on damage actions that result from such violations (Dripps, 2001). Because there are some exceptions, such as the good faith exception, to the exclusionary rule, there appears to be enough latitude in this law to make its continued enforcement relevant and appropriate. Absent the protections afforded by the exclusionary rule, it is conceivable that law enforcement authorities...

As Jackson (1996) emphasizes, "The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter future Fourth Amendment violations by police officers" (p. 1201). This is not to say, of course, that all police officers will seek to use unconstitutional tactics to their advantage, but it is to say that the Constitution and by extension, the exclusionary rule, are intended to afford ordinary citizens against such tactics in case they are used.
References

Black's law dictionary. (1991). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Dripps, D. (2001). The case for the contingent exclusionary rule. American Criminal Law

Review, 38(1), 1-3.

Jackson, H.A. (1996). Expanding exclusionary rule exceptions and contracting Fourth

Amendment protection. Journal of Criminal Law…