Analyze the rationale and purpose of the exclusionary ruleThe exclusionary rule is not in the Constitution because it was adopted by the court in due to the need that arose. The intent was to ensure that the 4th Amendment was preserved and not violated. Most people are aware of their right to privacy and how it protects them from unwarranted searches. However, most of them do not understand how the rule of exclusion which guarantees this right is respected. The exclusionary rule is intended to prevent police from committing wrongdoing. The 4th Amendment right protects every citizen from unlawful searches and arrests. When police violate this 4th Amendment right, the evidence they have collected will be thrown out in federal court. The exclusionary rule is based on three fundamental principles. This is, first of all, an illegal action by a police officer or police officer. Subsequently, evidence of this action by the police and police officers must be obtained. The final element states that there must be a connection between the acquired evidence and the unauthorized action. In the event that a connection cannot be established between the evidence and the illegal action committed during the acquisition of the evidence, then, according to the doctrine of mitigation, the evidence escapes the exclusionary rule. In the event that the defense is convinced that such a violation of the If 4 amendment rights has been obtained, a motion may be filed by defense counsel to suppress the evidence. The prosecutor must then prove that there was no violation, by a preponderance of the evidence. If the prosecution fails to prove the facts, the main prosecution will reject the evidence in the case. Nevertheless, in rebuttal, when the credibility of the witness is at midpoint, the benefits to society should take precedence over the application of the rule. To ensure the ultimate benefit of the exclusionary rule, the balance maintained in its implementation should be oriented towards the need for a healthy and sensible society. Even with the exclusionary rule, warrantless searches cannot be completely eradicated. Since the Supreme Court has the right to craft exceptions, the right to privacy will be removed. To ensure that the rule reaps the maximum benefits, the magistrate must not show bias at any time. In view of societal values ​​and the common good, the magistrate must also not be too rigid to consider taking into account other variables in question. To ensure that the police do not misuse the warrant given to them, I think it would be prudent for the warrant to be specific as to what evidence is to be collected and where it is to be collected..