In theory there are. In practice, they don't work. A cop who uses illegal means to get evidence that lands convictions will be told "Don't do that again, wink wink".
Cops who violate crooks' rights are likely to violate the rights of innocent people as well. The exclusionary rule doesn't just protect crooks. It also protects innocent people by discouraging cops from violating anyone's rights.
What is so bad about telling cops that if they want their evidence to be usable, they must follow the rules in acquiring it?
It would help if the rules had a passing resemblance to reality. I was a cop during the worst part of the Supreme Court's war on police search & seizure. Implementing whatever stupid idea entered the heads of five guys in black robes wound up getting me a bullet in my left lung (which is one of my two favorite lungs).