K. Comment: I agree with the majority opinion. The Constitution is the absolute guiding law of the land, and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that its protections will be extended to state actions. The Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy and assures citizens that they will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also imposes a warrant requirement for the majority of searches, so that most searches that occur without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment. The search in this case certainly violated the Fourth Amendment, but whether or not the constitutional violations were as egregious as in this case should not be the determinant of whether evidence is excluded, because the Constitution absolutely bans all unreasonable searches and seizures. While the dissent suggests that other remedies can help a defendant who has been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure, the fact is that none of those remedies can place a defendant in the position of not having been subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure. However, the remedy that comes the closest is to exclude any evidence seized during such an illegal search, which places a defendant in the same position, in a criminal trial, as he would have been absent such an illegal search. Although the exclusionary rule may result in guilty people escaping prosecution and conviction, the Constitution was not written to enable prosecution and conviction, but to ensure personal liberty.
L. Principle: Evidence obtained as the result of searches or seizures that violate the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in state or federal criminal proceedings, because the Fourteenth Amendment extends Fourth Amendment protections to state criminal court proceedings.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=367&page=643