Was the Supreme Court "coddling criminals," as the common accusation had it? Or was it properly securing rights frequently trampled on by jaded police?even if this meant that some criminals went free? An illuminating discussion in which useful distinctions are made, e.g., between search-and-seizure cases, where the only people helped by the exclusionary rule are those found with incriminating evidence, and right-to-counsel cases, in some of which--Mr. Neier asserts, referring to recent incidents in New York City--"district attorneys, of all people, had to move for dismissal of indictments ... after murder confessions were secured, after between 10 and 26 hours of police questioning. In none of those cases is it clear that police used actual physical coercion. In each of those cases it is clear that police engaged in standard forms of questioning designed to, on the one hand, terrify the person; on the other hand, to make him think he's confessing to a buddy."