must obtain a warrant, supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral magistrate. Commonwealth v. Petroll, 558 Pa. 565, 738 A.2d 993, 998 (1999). This rule is subject to limited exceptions, such as the existence of exigent circumstances. Id. at 999. To effectuate the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment, in the early part of the last century, the United States Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule, which bars the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. Weeks v. United States, 282 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914). Although the rule initially applied only to federal prosecutions, in Mapp v. Ohio, the high Court expanded the scope of the exclusionary rule to state prosecutions. 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) (<HOLDING>). The high Court has repeatedly explained that
holding that direct and indirect evidence from unlawful searches is inadmissible holding all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the constitution is by that same authority inadmissible in a state court holding that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is inadmissible in state court holding that the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to the states under the fourteenth amendment so that evidence seized in violation of the constitution could no longer be used in state courts holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible