At its inception, the rule applied only to Federal prosecutions. In 1961, in the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the rule was mandated in state prosecutions as well. While the avowed purpose of the rule is to deter police misconduct, additional goals are to preserve judicial dignity, safeguard judicial integrity, maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system, and protect individual rights. Those who have challenged the rule assert several grounds; the rule is not an effective deterrent to police misconduct; the rule denies relevant and probative evidence; and the rule punishes society and rewards the defendant. In addition, critics note that determining whether evidence was obtained illegally is not always clear cut. Good faith, attenuation, independent source, and inevitable discovery exclusions to the rule are discussed. A flow chart illustrating the exclusionary rule is included. 27 footnotes