The U.S. Justice Department and a number of senators support S. 237 as a modification of the exclusionary rule because the rule has no practical deterrent effect on officer misconduct so long as officers are acting under the belief that they are complying with the law. Proponents argue that the exclusionary rule should be limited to the suppression of evidence obtained through flagrant violations of constitutional privacy mandates which reason dictates should be known by every police officer. Opponents of S.237, including an official representative of the American Bar Association's position, argue that S.237 would disregard four exceptions to evidence admissibility declared by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Leon (1984). Opponents also reason that extension of the good faith test to warrantless situations goes considerably beyond the 'Leon' good faith exception. Another opposition argument is that the passage of S.237 is premature, since the practical consequences of 'Leon' have not yet been determined. A copy of the bill is included.