The Exclusionary Rule has clear deterrent effects or LEO's would not have been whining about it in various jurisdictions for various kinds of evidence for several centuries, and when it breaks down it is self-policing at the point of application by the trial judge or through corrective appeals.
You do realize that the 5th Amendment is essentially nothing more or less than an Exclusionary Rule for a very specific kind of evidence, don't you? You do realize that the 5th Amendment is why we do not rack US persons in criminal trials, don't you?
Or are you in favor of repealing the Exclusionary Rule against compulsion of self-incriminating testimony as well? That worked so well in English jurisprudence...
It was John Adams in his 7th “Novanglus” Letter published in 1774 that voiced the idea of many of the founders to provide us with a “government of laws, not of men”.
The modern U.S. judiciary with it’s “living constitution” has subverted that, by taking Constitutional “interpretation” further and further from the Constitution and any intentions in it, and the modern courts’ version of the “exclusionary rule” is just one such attempt, which its own history clearly shows is not from “the Constitution” (foundational, basic LAW) but from mere judicial fiat.
The very first case addressing anything near to the so-called “exclusionary rule”, in 1886 (nearly 100 years AFTER the Constitution was written) did not find that the Fourth Amendment, according to the Court in that era, the extended to “excluding testimony” about wrongful searches and seizures.
And, even in 1897 (more than 100 years after the Constitution was written), when the Supreme Court found that involuntary confessions were not admissible, they DID NOT find any general “exclusionary rule” was embedded between the lines in the Fourth Amendment.
The first use of any strong exclusionary rule by any court is not until 1902 (113 years after the U.S. Constitution), by the state courts of Iowa and it was based on the Iowa state constitution, not the Federal Constitution.
The first Federal court invention of a broad “exclusionary rule” is at the beginning of the progressive era, in 1914 (Weeks vs The United States)(125 years AFTER the Constitution), and even then that ruling made clear it only applied to federal cases. That ruling was uphold by SCOTUS later, in 1920, when it used it’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” language AND EVEN THEN did not extend the “exclusionary rule” to any but federal cases (131 years after the Constitution was written, and 5 decades AFTER the post-Civil War amendments). And even as late as 1949 (Wolf vs Colorado)(160 years AFTER the Constitution was written), SCOTUS ruled it did not apply to state courts [Like Texas??].
It is not until 1961 (Mapp vs Ohio) (172 years AFTER the Constitution is written) that SCOTUS discovers hidden in the “living Constitution” (not the Constitution we the people wrote) that its own late invention (in 1914) is applicable to the state courts.
It - the “exclusionary rule” - is not a product of the Constitution nor even the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It is a product of judicial fiat, literally writing a new Constitution from the bench, abrogating the most basic political right we have, that we the people (through our elected representatives), not the judges, are the authors of our Constitution.
Were THAT not the case, the “exclusionary rule” would have been “self evident” to the founders, and to the courts, from the beginning, not hidden for 97, or 106, or 111, or 113, or 125, or 131, or 160, or 172 years to be “discovered” hidden in somewhere (undiscovered by anyone else), like Deuteronomy.
Judges are men, they are NOT the law, and when they make up law themselves, via judicial fiat, they deny what the founders intended for us - a government of laws, not of men.