THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE BARS THE USE OF EVIDENCE SECURED THROUGH ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE. EXAMPLES OF CASES ARE CITED TO SHOW HOW THE RULE NEEDLESSLY FRUSTRATES POLICE AND PROSECUTORS. DURING THE RULE'S DEVELOPMENT, THE SUPREME COURT HAS OFFERED THREE MAIN REASONS FOR ITS EXISTENCE: PRIVACY, DETERRENCE, AND JUDICIAL INTEGRITY. AS A RESULT OF THE RULE, VALID, CONCLUSIVE, AND IRREFUTABLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM JURY VIEW OR FROM CONSIDERATION BY THE JUDGE. EVIDENCE SHOULD BE EXCLUDED BECAUSE IT IS INHERENTLY UNRELIABLE AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE ILLEGALITY INVOLVED IN OBTAINING IT. THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD AND, IN MANY RESPECTS, PREVENTS THE RESOLUTION OF PROBLEMS RELATED TO FOURTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS IN THE COURSE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. THERE SHOULD BE NO EXCLUSIONARY RULE FOR ILLEGALLY SEIZED EVIDENCE WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH RULE FOR ILLEGALLY SEIZED PERSONS. THE RULE FAILS TO MEET ITS DECLARED OBJECTIVES AND SUFFERS FROM FIVE OTHER DEFECTS: IT USES AN INDISCRIMINATE APPROACH IN THE MOST SENSITIVE AREAS OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION; IT MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MINOR OFFENSES AND MORE SERIOUS CRIMES; IT IS SUPPOSED TO DISCIPLINE AND IMPROVE POLICE CONDUCT BUT ACTUALLY RESULTS IN ENCOURAGING HIGHLY PERNICIOUS POLICE BEHAVIOR; IT DISCOURAGES INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY THE POLICE THEMSELVES; AND THE EXISTENCE OF A FEDERALLY IMPOSED EXCLUSIONARY RULE MAKES IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY STATE TO EXPERIMENT WITH METHODS FOR CONTROLLING POLICE. THE CREATION OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES TO HANDLING THE VIOLATION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS BY THE POLICE IS EXAMINED IN RELATION TO INTERNAL DISCIPLINE AND EXTERNAL CONTROL. (DEP)