What is the exclusionary rule in the context of search and seizure?

of a Fourth Amendment violation, but rather is intended to deter "intentional conduct that was patently unconstitutional." Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 143-44 (2009); see also Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 237 (2011) (noting that while "real deterrent value is a necessary condition for exclusion . . . it is not a sufficient one"). Accordingly, "exclusion 'has always been our last resort, not our first impulse,'" and thus "to trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct must be sufficiently deliberate that exclusion can meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence is worth the price paid by the justice system." Herring, 555 U.S. at 140, 144 (internal quotation marks omitted).