The exclusionary rule prohibits the admission in criminal trials of evidence obtained in violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights which guarantee the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The OLP recommends a program of legislative, litigative, and administrative initiatives to abolish the exclusionary rule, given the existence of less costly alternatives for enforcing the fourth amendment. Regarding legislation, the OLP suggests an amendment to S. 237, the principal exclusionary rule bill pending in Congress, that would abolish the rule. The OLP also supports amendments to the Federal Tort Claims Act to make the United States the exclusive defendant in suits based on constitutional torts by Federal employees, since the enactment of such a statute might help convince the U.S. Supreme Court that viable alternatives to the rule are in place. On the litigative front, the OLP recommends that the Justice Department urge the U.S. Supreme Court to end the application of the exclusionary rule in Federal and State prosecutions. In the administrative area, the OLP recommends that the Justice Department publicize the effectiveness of existing administrative practices and review those practices to determine how they might be strengthened. Another recommendation is that the Justice Department sponsor research on the effectiveness of existing civil remedies for police search-and-seizure violations as well as the degree to which the resolution of suppression motions now burdens the court system. Appended text of the fourth amendment, selected exclusionary rule cases, and a brief note on Mapp v. Ohio