Four recent court decisions -- Rakas v. Illinois, United States v. Salvucci, Rawlings v. Kentucky, and United States v. Payner -- have an impact on the fourth amendment exclusionary rule, because they limit the numbers of people who may litigate the constitutionality of lawful and unlawful policy activity. The Supreme Court interprets the fourth amendment to mean that if a lawful search warrant or other judicial process issues against other than criminal suspects or defendants, such parties must submit to the resulting inconvenience or financial loss without legal redress. Congress, however, has acted to create greater protections in some of these settings. Thus, in the Federal Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, Congress has restricted the circumstances under which Federal authorities can access financial institution records on transactions of certain customers. Also, the Federal Privacy Protection Act of 1980 protects persons reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communications in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce against execution of search warrants by Federal or State officers or employees unless statutory prerequisites are met. Seventy-eight references are included.