Exclusionary rule has been accepted in different legal systems and has not been clearly accepted in Iranian legal system. this rule can be justified both on the basis of individualism thinking and in the idea of collectivism. In the first approach, the goal is to further protect the accused and guarantee his human and individual rights, in the second approach, the goal is to improve the quality of the trial and the performance of the judicial system. Studies show that the dominant approach in Iranian law, as well as in many other individualistic legal systems, has been the reason for the exclusionary rule. the changes that have taken place in the legal system have caused the ideological foundations of this rule to change and society to thinking be in the center of attention rather than the individual, which in turn raises the status of the judiciary and, in other words, increases legitimacy. This study was conducted with a comparative study in the USA and Iranian legal system and the result is the confirmation of the rise of both legal systems to collectivist thinking as the basis for identifying exclusionary rule and attention to social feedback on the performance of the judiciary.