Evidence is not "fruit."
Police investigations are not "trees."
Police errors are not "poisons."
There are better ways to punish overly aggressive cops than by throwing out evidence and letting criminals go free.
The Exclusionary Rule was invented by liberal, activist judges who always side with defendants and against the community's interest in justice and security.
Time to wave it bye-bye.
Actually there are no other ways. The cops are almost never punished.
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?