Is exclusionary rule deterrence of unlawful police conduct?

The basic question is whether the purpose of the exclusionary rule deterrence of unlawful police conduct (Lockridge v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 166, 171, 89 Cal.Rptr. 731, 474 P.2d 683) demands suppression of evidence found during the execution of a valid search warrant for the sole reason that the police gained entrance into the premises searched through a ruse which arguably involved a technical violation of a federal statute. Put differently: should a California court pay the price of rejecting probative evidence in order to deter California law enforcement personnel from violating a federal statute where the violation does not directly affect the legality of the search, but only goes to the collateral issue of the manner in which the premises searched were entered? We think not.