The exclusionary rule (fruit of the poisonous tree) isn't in the Constitution. In fact, under the law that the Founders established, evidence, NO MATTER HOW OBTAINED, was admissible in the Courts. One could seek separate actions against authorities if they obtained the evidence illegally, but the evidence was still admissible.
So tell me, why were the Founders wrong? Why was the Constitution as written by the Founders wrong? What made activist courts who invented the rule from the bench (as it isn't in the Constitution) right? Why did they become right only after more than a Century of the prior practice?
Don't ask me. Ask an attorney who has spent years studying case law. "Why were the Founders wrong?" How about "Why do you beat your wife?" It's the same kind of snarky question I've come to expect these days.