THE EVOLVING VIEW OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, AND SIXTH AMENDMENTS (I.E.,PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES AND COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION, AND RIGHTS TO COUNSEL, CONFRONTATION, AND CROSS-EXAMINATION IN CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN BURGER'S COURT ARE TRACED. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT THE BURGER COURT IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH INCREASING THE PROBABILITY OF CONVICTING THE FACTUALLY GUILTY, HE MAINTAINS THAT THIS CONCERN, WHICH DEPRECIATES THE INTEREST OF THE COURT UNDER CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN IN THE PROPRIETY OF CONDUCT BY STATE OFFICIALS TOWARDS CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS, CORRESPONDS TO A PARTICULAR MODE OF DECISIONMAKING USED BY THE BURGER COURT TO ALTER OR TO LIMIT THE DOCTRINES OF ITS PREDECESSOR, THE WARREN COURT, THIS TYPE OF DECISIONMAKING INVOLVES INTERPRETING THE TEXTUAL PROVISIONS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS AS PRINCIPLES RATHER THAN RULES, THEREBY IMPOSING FEWER CONSTRAINTS ON BOTH STATE OFFICERS DEALING WITH CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS AND STATE COURTS ASSESSING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--VDA)