A review of court decisions that issued in the adoption of the exclusionary rule by both State and Federal courts shows that the courts were concerned with curtailing unlawful police conduct in the obtaining of evidence. In these cases, the exclusionary rule was used to deprive the police of any benefit (i.e., evidence against the defendant) from the unlawful securing of evidence. The rationale for extending the exclusionary rule to judicially sanctioned searches is less clear. The exclusionary rule has been applied in cases where the magistrate erred in issuing an improper warrant, even though the police acted in good faith and in accordance with law in acting upon the warrant. The issue to be decided is whether if the magistrate has erred rather than the police, the guilty should go free. If the exclusionary rule was initially intended as a punitive vehicle for unlawful police behavior, then it seems inappropriate that it be applied when the police have acted properly under a warrant properly obtained. When the police have obtained a warrant by misrepresenting ground for probable cause to the magistrate, then the exclusionary rule should still apply. Sixty footnotes are listed.