I am trying to understand all of the frenzy surrounding the exclusionary rule, or at least quell academic criticisms (that through some scholastic snobbery feebly posit American adversarial courts as less concerned with justice by deeming illegally-obtained evidence as inadmissible).
Thanks to Mapp v. Ohio (1964), evidence obtained in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments is thrown out of court to deter wrongful police conduct...
EXCEPT when there is a good faith attempt by police to obtain the evidence legally, and
EXCEPT when evidence would have been obtained by other means (free will, inevitably, whatever)
Can we all recognize the wiggle room here and quit the yapping?