How has the exclusionary rule been interpreted in the context of an impersonating officer?

"The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct." (Lockridge v. Superior Court (1970), 3 Cal.3d 166, 171, 89 Cal.Rptr. 731, 734, 474 P.2d 683, 686.) In the instant case, as distinguished from Lockridge, the warrant service was illegal (in Lockridge the warrant was subsequently found to be insufficient ); the contraband was the direct product of the illegal entry; the very purpose of the illegal entry was to [77 Cal.App.3d 147] obtain the evidence directly involved with the warrant. I cannot understand how the majority read Lockridge as supportive for the violation of law by the impersonating officer, which they approve. ²