THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE DECISION IN MICHIGAN V TUCKER (1974) ARE DESCRIBED AND PREVIOUS CASE LAW ESTABLISHING TESTS FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS IS REVIEWED. THE ANALYSIS EMPLOYED BY THE COURT IN TUCKER WHICH JUSTIFIED PLACING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS IS EXPLAINED. THE CONCEPT OF APPLYING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO ALL UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT WHETHER DONE IN GOOD FAITH, IGNORANCE OF EXISTING LAW OR WITH MALICIOUS INTENT IS DISCUSSED. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE COURT HAS CONSTRUCTED AN EXCLUSIONARY RULE WHICH VITIATES THE MIRANDA RATIONALE.