Is the exclusionary rule applicable to other defendants?

'The necessity for that predicate was not eliminated by recognizing and acknowledging the deterrent aim of the rule. [Citations.] Neither those cases nor any others hold that anything which deters illegal searches is thereby commanded by the Fourth Amendment. The deterrent values of preventing the incrimination of those whose rights the police have violated have been considered sufficient to justify the suppression of probative evidence even though the case against the defendant is weakened or destroyed. We adhere to that judgment. But we are not convinced that the additional benefits of extending the exclusionary rule to other defendants would justify further encroachment upon the public interest in prosecuting those accused of crime and having them acquitted or convicted on the basis of all the evidence which exposes the truth.' (Alderman v. United States, supra, U.S. at pp. 171-172, 174-175, 89 S.Ct. at pp. 965, 967, 22 L.Ed.2d at pp. 185-187.)