DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRES WERE COMPLETED BY SAMPLES OF POLICE, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OFFICIALS IN TWO AREAS OF A LARGE NORTHEASTERN STATE, MEASURING THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE MEANING AND APPLICATION OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASPECTS OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. SUBJECTS RAISED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE INCLUDED STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REASONABLE AND UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, COMPENSATORY AND DISCIPLINARY USE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BY COURTS, VIEWS ON UNPRODUCTIVE POLICE SEARCHES AND WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE SITUATIONS, AND OPINIONS ON SPECIFIC MODIFICATIONS OF AND ALTERNATIVES TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE. POLICE AND PROSECUTION PERSONNEL PREFERRED AN APPLICATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT THAT WOULD NOT PUT SEVERE RESTRICTIONS ON EVIDENCE GATHERING, WHEREAS, DEFENSE PERSONNEL URGED THE PROTECTION OF A CITIZEN'S RIGHTS. ALL VIEWED THE COURTS AS GENERALLY FAVORING A SUSPECT'S RIGHTS IN QUESTIONABLE SITUATIONS. THOSE SAMPLED FAVORED RETAINING THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AS A NORM FOR COURT RULINGS, WHILE PREFERRING LIMITATIONS ON ITS DISCIPLINARY APPLICATION. THE AUTHOR RECOMMENDS INSTITUTING WELL-DEFINED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES FOR POLICE IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE SITUATIONS AND CLEAR LIMITATIONS ON COURT APPLICATION OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE, WHILE PROVIDING FOR COMPENSATORY CIVIL ACTION OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN CASES OF SEVERE VIOLATIONS OF FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS....RCB