Its purpose is to deter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way—by removing the incentive to disregard it. Whether the exclusionary sanction is appropriately imposed in a particular case is an issue separate from the question whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking to invoke the rule were violated by police conduct.
Mapp establishes that the rule is of constitutional origin, but this does not necessarily establish that it is immune to statutory revision. Last Edited by Jonathan Kim, June menu of sources. The inquiry under either approach is the same.
The exclusionary rule is not applicable to non-U. Saucier v. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable.
Gatesbefore the Supreme Court brought the exclusionary rule for reconsideration.