The first and foremost is that the exclusionary rule ensures that Law Enforcement has to work within the law to prosecute someone. Most importantly, it generally keeps them on track with our constitutional rights. By having this rule, the police carefully make their decisions now because anything unlawful may ruin their entire investigation. In addition, it makes Law Enforcement present a strong case and makes them work much harder. Most importantly, the rule protects the innocent and provides support to the people’s basic rights. Personally, the exclusionary rule expands the Fourth Amendment in a good way. The problem is the exclusionary rule is not mentioned in the constitution. To further explain, the exclusionary rule is not applied in civil case and deportation hearings. However, it is best to know your states laws because it may vary from state to state and it may change even in the future. Another negative is that a lot of prosecutor, police officers and judges believe the exclusionary rule protects the guilty. The guilty gets of scot free because if the officer’s mistakes. Most importantly, the rule can delay and alter each case, which causes more crimes and case pileups. Technically, it is not a constitutional right but more a correction to the methods used by the police. Primarily, the rule was to establish deterrence against unconstitutional searches, but it’s not that affective (Lombardo,