context: Plistorically, the Court also viewed the exclusionary rule as preserving the integrity of the judicial process by banishing evidence secured only because government agents violated the Constitution.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 232 U.S. 394, 394
citation_a.parenthetical: "To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action."
citation_a.sentence: Elkins, 364 U.S. at 222-23; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 394 (“To sanction such proceedings would be to affirm by judicial decision a manifest neglect, if not an open defiance, of the prohibitions of the Constitution, intended for the protection of the people against such unauthorized action.”)- The twin objectives of deterring unconstitutional searches and preserving judicial integrity made the exclusionary rule an essential remedy for Fourth Amendment violations.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 468 U.S. 905, 905-06
citation_b.parenthetical: recognizing that Court precedent has "implied that the exclusionary rule is a necessary corollary of the Fourth Amendment"
citation_b.sentence: See Mapp, 367 U.S. at 657; Weeks, 232 U.S. at 393; cf. Leon, 468 U.S. at 905-06 (recognizing that Court precedent has “implied that the exclusionary rule is a necessary corollary of the Fourth Amendment”).