The Australian Law Reform Commission views adherence by the United States to protection of the fourth amendment against illegally seized evidence as 'purist absolutism.' Australian and English courts treat the issue as a private matter between a police officer and the individual. 'Bunning' gave trial judges the discretion to exclude illegally seized evidence after weighing the competing requirements of bringing criminals to trial or encouraging unlawful conduct by arresting officers. The practice employed by the U.S. Supreme Court of weighing the loss of evidence against the effect of applying the exclusionary rule is seen as a 'good faith exception to the exclusionary rule,' similar to the 'discretion' exercised by the Anglo-Australian Courts. It is suggested that the Anglo-Australian approach merits consideration. 30 references.