THE FOCUS IS ON THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLEA NEGOTATION AND THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE OF EVIDENCE AS PORTRAYED IN THE COMMENTS AND ACTIONS OF PROSECUTORS IN TWO CHICAGO (IL) BRANCH COURTS ESPECIALLY CREATED TO HANDLE NARCOTICS OFFENSES. STUDY DATA WAS BASED ON 31 DAYS OF OBSERVATIONS OF COURT HEARINGS AND PLEA NEGOTIATIONS, INTERVIEWS WITH SIX PROSECUTORS, AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS' DESCRIPTIONS OF PRACTISING LAW IN THE NARCOTICS COURTS. DISCUSSED ARE THE SETTING OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS IN THE NARCOTICS BRANCH COURTS, VOLUNTARY DISMISSALS OF CASES APART FROM PLEA NEGOTIATIONS, PROSECUTORIAL POLICIES ON PLEA NEGOTIATIONS IN RELATION TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, AND SITUATIONAL CONCESSIONS INHERENT IN FELONY PLEA NEGOTIATION AT THE BRANCH COURT LEVEL. STUDY DATA REVEALED NO SUPPORT FOR THE SPECULATION AND FEAR THAT SOME PROSECUTORS MAY BE INCLINED TO USE THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS AS A MEANS OF INDUCING WHOLESALE ABANDONMENT OF CLAIMS UNDER THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THE SUPERVISING STATE'S ATTORNEY IN THE BRANCH COURTS HAD A STATED POLICY, WHICH HE APPEARED TO FOLLOW IN ALMOST ALL CASES, OF MAKING SENTENCING OFFERS INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE MADE AT THE BRANCH COURT LEVEL.