Since the exclusionary rule has often resulted in suppression of convincing evidence of crime,it has generated controversy.How has the Supreme Court dealt with this?

During the past three decades,the Supreme Court has responded to the criticism by rendering decisions that restrict the operation of the exclusionary rule.The Court has held that illegally obtained evidence may be introduced at trial if the prosecution convinces the trial judge that the evidence would inevitably have been obtained anyway by lawful means.The Court has also created a "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.This exception allows the use of evidence seized by police officers who acted pursuant to a search warrant later held invalid if the officers reasonably believed that the warrant was valid.