THE CASES ARE ANALYZED IN WHICH THE BURGER COURT HAS DECLINED TO EXTEND 'MIRANDA' PROTECTIONS TO MOTOR VEHICLE VIOLATIONS, APPROVED THE USE OF STATEMENTS TAKEN IN VIOLATION OF 'MIRANDA' FOR PURPOSES OF IMPEACHMENT, ESTABLISHED A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TEST FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS, AND REDEFINED THE CONCEPT OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A CUSTODIAL SETTING. BURGER COURT RULINGS HAVE ALSO RESTRICTED THE APPLICATION OF THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE IN GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS AND PRISON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER IS SEEKING TO REDEFINE THE TRADITIONAL TEST OF A VOLUNTARY WAIVER. THE BURGER COURT HAS LIMITED THE APPLICATION OF THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE TO TESTIMONIAL UTTERANCES GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF FORMAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OR AT THE TRIAL ITSELF. THUS, THE BURGER COURT HAS SERIOUSLY UNDERMINED THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MIRANDA DECISION AND THE EFFECT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE ESTABLISHED BY THAT CASE. IT HAS DONE SO BY CONVERTING APPARENTLY CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED BY THE WARREN COURT INTO MERE JUDICIALLY CREATED EVIDENTIARY RULES WHICH SHOULD ONLY BE USED TO PROTECT FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN CASES INVOLVING GROSS OR NEGLIGENT POLICE MISCONDUCT. AS A RESULT OF THESE SUPREME COURT RULINGS, DEFENSE COUNSELS MUST LOOK ELSEWHERE THAN TO THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS TO INSULATE CLIENTS FROM GOVERNMENTAL POWERS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED --- RCB)