THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRECEDENTS OF THE WARREN COURT APPEAR TO BE CHARACTERIZED BY THREE MAJOR TENETS OF CONSTITUTIONAL PHILOSOPHY: (1) FUNDAMENTAL STANDARDS AFFECTING CRIMINAL CASES MUST BE SET BY THE SUPREME COURT AND OTHER FEDERAL COURTS AND MUST BE CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED AMONG THE STATES AND BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS; (2) THE INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS IS MOST IN NEED OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND JUDICIAL ATTENTION SHOULD BE AIMED AT CONFIRMING THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS APPLY TO THE STATES THROUGH THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT; AND (3) TRADITIONAL RELATIVE CONCEPTS OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRE THAT QUITE SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS OF COMPLIANCE BE ESTABLISHED. WARREN COURT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE, PHYSICAL SEARCH, AND CONFESSIONS HAVE EITHER BEEN ABANDONED OR ERODED IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS BY THE BURGER COURT. IN THE WARREN DECISIONS, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WAS USED PRIMARILY AS A TRADITIONAL TOOL FOR IMPOSING DETAILED FEDERAL STANDARDS ON STATE COURTS AND OFFICIALS, OFTEN WITH LITTLE CONSIDERATION OF THE EFFECTS OF FEDERAL DECISIONS ON STATE CASELOADS AND DOCKETS. DECISIONS OF THE BURGER COURT HAVE, ON THE OTHER HAND IN MANY CASES, PRODUCED A SHIFT BACK TO MORE GENERAL STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS AND VOLUNTARINESS, STRESSED THE ROLE OF THE STATES IN THE PROTECTION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS, AND HAVE ALLOWED THE STATES CONSIDERABLE LATITUDE IN EXPLORING ALTERNATIVES WHICH NEED NOT NECESSARILY CONFORM TO FEDERAL RULE. WHERE THE BURGER COURT HAS RELIED UPON DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION, IT HAS SHOWN A GREATER AWARENESS OF THE TRADITIONAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO CLAUSES AND HAS OFTEN USED THEM CREATIVELY TO PROVIDE REGULATION IN AREAS PREVIOUSLY UNTOUCHED SUCH AS WOMEN'S RIGHTS, PRISONERS' RIGHTS, AND THE FIELD OF MENTAL HEALTH LAWS. BASED ON DISCERNIBLE POLICY TRENDS IN DECISIONS OF THE BURGER COURT, PARTICULARLY THOSE BETWEEN 1973 AND MID-1975, IT IS PREDICTED THAT INCREASINGLY LESS EFFORT WILL BE MADE TO CONTROL POLICE POWER THROUGH EXCLUSIONARY RULES AND THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULES MAY EVENTUALLY SHRINK TO LITTLE OR NOTHING. LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND STATES WILL PROBABLY BE CONSIDERABLY FREER IN DETERMINING THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES, AND INDEFINITE WARNINGS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CONCEPT WILL LIKELY BE ISSUED TO FORCE STATE REEXAMINATION OF LEGISLATION PREVIOUSLY UNTOUCHED BY CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)