Does the exclusionary rule apply to a defendant who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure?

"Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted." (Alderman v. United States (1968) 394 U.S. 165, 174, 89 S.Ct. 961, 966, 22 L.Ed.2d 176.) "A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." (Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128, 134, 99 S.Ct. 421, 425, 58 L.Ed.2d 387.) Since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule's protections. (Ibid.) The question is whether the challenged search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of a criminal defendant who seeks to exclude the evidence obtained during it. That inquiry in turn requires a determination of whether the disputed search and seizure has infringed an interest of the defendant which the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect. (Id., at p. 140, 99 S.Ct. at 428.)