The first essay notes that the exclusionary rule evolved because of the ineffectiveness of the warrant procedure in preventing illegal searches and seizures, and it remains effective as a means of preventing the government from achieving the ends of its illegal activity. Further, the essay argues that the exclusionary rule stands as a symbol of the justice system's commitment to the citizen rights mandated in the fourth amendment. The second essay advises that to remedy the undesirable consequences of the exclusionary rule, new legislation should provide for an effective separate disciplinary system for Federal law enforcement agencies, a meaningful civil tort claim remedy for all victims of illegal searches, and the abolition of the exclusionary rule as applied to material evidence. The third essay argues that the exclusionary rule is of constitutional origin, seldom results in the freeing of the guilty, deters official misconduct, and demonstrates commitment to the rule of law in the face of official lawlessness. The concluding essay addresses the points of the previous essay as a base for supporting the 'good faith' exception to the exclusionary rule. Subjective and objective criteria for determining officer 'good faith' in a search and seizure circumstance are identified and discussed. Notes accompany each essay. For individual documents, see NCJ 92356-58.