IT IS SUGGESTED THAT CONCERN OVER BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, AS REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED BILL, HAS FOCUSED ON THE RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS AND HAS IGNORED THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS AND THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, WITHOUT EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT BY POLICE, BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS DISAPPEAR AND SOCIAL CHAOS DEVELOPS. THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE LEVEL OF ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION WILL DROP AS POLICE ATTEMPT TO SORT OUT THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESTRICTIONS UNDER A FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS IS RAISED. THE BILL IS ALSO CRITICIZED ON THE GROUNDS THAT POLICE OFFICERS MIGHT BECOME LESS INCLINED TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH THEY MIGHT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR VIOLATING SOMEONE'S RIGHTS. OTHER CRITICISMS HAVE TO DO WITH THE BILL'S FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE VICTIM'S RIGHTS TO RESTITUTION AS IT DOES THE ACCUSED'S RIGHTS TO A FAIR TRIAL, WITH THE BILL'S LIMITATION OF POLICE POWERS TO RESTRICT ASSEMBLAGE, AND WITH THE LACK OF GUIDELINES TO BE USED BY POLICE FOR RESOLVING SITUATIONS IN WHICH RIGHTS ARE IN CONFLICT. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE SPONSORS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE LIMITATIONS ON POLICE DETENTION AND BY RESTRICTIONS ON PROPOSED BILL HAVE EXCLUDED THE VIEWPOINT OF THE PRINCIPAL PROTECTORS OF HUMAN RIGHTS--THE POLICE--FROM THEIR DELIBERATIONS. IT IS FURTHER SUGGESTED THAT GREATER PROTECTION TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS IS MORE LIKELY TO RESULT FROM MORE FEDERAL FUNDING OF STATE FORCES THAN FROM PASSAGE OF MORE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND RULES. SOCIETAL CONFLICTS THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE ROLE OF THE POLICE CAN BE DEFINED ARE ALSO NOTED. (LKM)