THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE ARE LISTED AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE RELEASE OF MANY OTHERWISE GUILTY PERSONS, SOME OF WHOM ARE DANGEROUS OR VIOLENT; (2) THE DIMINISHMENT OF PUBLIC RESPECT FOR THE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM; (3) FAILURE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN MORE AND LESS SERIOUS CRIMES OR BETWEEN WILLFUL, FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS BY AN OFFICER AND 'GOOD-FAITH' ERRORS COMMITTED IN DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES; (4) EXCLUSION OF THE MOST CREDIBLE KINDS OF EVIDENCE; (5) THE INTENSIFICATION OF PLEA BARGAINING, SINCE A QUESTIONABLE SEARCH MAY BE ONE OF THE BARGAINING POINTS BETWEEN PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE; AND (6) PRODUCTION OF A TENDENCY TO PUSH THE JUDICIARY TOWARD DANGEROUSLY EXPANDED NOTIONS OF WHAT IS A LEGAL SEARCH IN ORDER TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH JUDGES ARE RELUCTANT TO SUPPRESS. AGAINST THESE DISADVANTAGES, THE ONLY POTENTIAL ADVANTAGE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IS THE DETERRENCE OF ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE BY POLICE. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PROPONENTS OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE TO SHOW THAT IT DOES IN FACT ACHIEVE THIS DETERRENCE. WHILE THERE ARE STUDIES THAT CLAIM TO SHOW A SIGNIFICANT DETERRENCE IMPACT ON ILLEGAL POLICE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THE FLAWS IN THE METHODOLOGIES OF THESE STUDIES MAKE THEIR CONCLUSIONS QUESTIONABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE OTHER STUDIES THAT STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE HAS NOT AFFECTED POLICE BEHAVIOR. THE FACTS WOULD TEND TO SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION, BECAUSE IT IS THE PROSECUTION RATHER THAN THE POLICE THAT IS DISADVANTAGED BY THE RULE. NO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES RESULT FOR THE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THOSE STATES WHICH DEVELOP ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES FOR THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE WILL NOT CONTINUE TO BE BOUND BY IT. STATE LEGISLATURES AND CONGRESS SHOULD ENACT ALTERNATIVE SCHEMES AND TEST THEM IN THE COURTS THROUGH CASES REVIEWING CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. (RCB)