While the rule was established to deter official misconduct and preserve the integrity of the judicial system, courts invoke it primarily to deter illegal conduct. Recognizing the social costs of the exclusionary rule, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed exceptions that apply when the deterrent purpose would not be achieved. One such exception, the inevitable discovery rule, admits illegally obtained evidence that the court finds would ultimately have been obtained by legal means. The exception clearly applies to derivative evidence ('fruit of the poisonous tree'), but courts have been divided as to whether the exception should apply to primary evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court has not clarified this issue. It is argued that permitting the prosecution to use the direct products of official misconduct at a criminal trial subsequently weakens the protections afforded by the fourth amendment. The justification for the inevitable discovery exception is based on the rationale of the independent source exception. Both exceptions seek to put the police in the position they would have occupied if the illegal conduct had not occurred. Because of the relationship between the two exceptions, it should not be permissible to admit evidence under inevitable discovery when it is not permissible under the independent source exception. Moreover, given the potential of the inevitable discovery exception to obviate fourth amendment requirements for search warrants, exclusion of illegally obtained primary evidence is necessary to deter police abuses. 103 footnotes.