As recounted, unlike a conflicts of law approach, an exclusionary rule analysis requires us to consider the principles served by that rule. Bridges identified three purposes underlying our exclusionary rule: judicial integrity, protection of individual privacy, and deterrence of illegal police misconduct.
It's sort of interesting, because the SCOTUS has recognized principles such as judicial integrity when it comes to excluding defense evidence upon lack of proper notice of defense, but fails to recognize it when it comes to the Fourth Amendment. Nice to see a state court take a broader approach.
I wonder if mid-19th century Kansans thought privacy from government intrusion was an important principle?