Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government ... in extending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches—state or federal—it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine—an essential part of the right to privacy—be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right.... [O]ur holding that the exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is not only the logical dictate of prior cases, but it also makes very good sense. There is no war between the Constitution and common sense. There are those who say ... that under our constitutional exclusionary doctrine "[t] he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." ...[And] in some cases this will undoubtedly be the result. But...there is another consideration— the imperative of judicial integrity. ...The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice

1. Why did the Court apply the exclusionary rule to the states? 
2. What did the Court mean by "judicial integrity"? 
3. Is the Court's ruling the only way to protect citizens from unreasonable searches? Can you think of any alternatives to the exclusionary rule?