Final answer:
The exclusionary rule, established in Mapp v. Ohio, is a judicially created remedy to deter Fourth Amendment violations and excludes illegally obtained evidence from state court cases. State judges, however, are not compelled to apply it in every instance, and exceptions like 'good faith' and 'inevitable discovery' allow for some flexibility in the rule's application.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case referenced by your question, emphasizing that the exclusionary rule is a remedy aimed at deterring Fourth Amendment rights violations, is Mapp v. Ohio (1961). In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the use of evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures in state courts. This rule, intended to act as a deterrent and to uphold constitutional rights, is not mandated for state court judges to apply in every case. However, it signifies that when law enforcement officers conduct an illegal search or seizure without a warrant, the discovered evidence, as well as any further evidence developed as a result of the initial illegality ('fruit of the poisonous tree'), is typically inadmissible in court.
Cases such as Weeks v. United States established the exclusionary rule at the federal level, and Mapp v. Ohio extended its application to the states. While integral to safeguarding Fourth Amendment protections, subsequent rulings like United States v. Leon and Nix v. Williams have recognized exceptions to this rule, such as the 'good faith' exception and the 'inevitable discovery' doctrine.