Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More

Case Citation
Legal Case Name

ILLINOIS v. KRULL Case Brief

Supreme Court of United States1987
480 U.S. 340 107 S.Ct. 1160 94 L.Ed.2d 364 Criminal Procedure Constitutional Law Evidence Administrative Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: Police searched an auto wrecking yard under an Illinois statute authorizing warrantless searches, which was later declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when police act in objectively reasonable reliance on a statute, even if it is later invalidated.

Legal Significance: This case extends the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, established in Leon for defective warrants, to situations where police reasonably rely on a statute authorizing a search, even if that statute is later found to be unconstitutional.

ILLINOIS v. KRULL Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

An Illinois statute required licensed automobile parts dealers to maintain certain records and to permit state officials to conduct warrantless inspections of their premises to verify the accuracy of those records. Pursuant to this statute, a Chicago police detective conducted a warrantless search of the respondents’ automobile wrecking yard. During the search, the detective discovered three stolen vehicles and a fourth with its identification number removed. The respondents were arrested and charged with criminal violations. The day after the search, a federal district court, in an unrelated case, declared the Illinois inspection statute unconstitutional because it granted officials overly broad discretion. The Illinois trial court suppressed the evidence seized from the wrecking yard, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The state high court held that the statute was unconstitutional and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply to searches conducted in reliance on an unconstitutional statute, distinguishing it from reliance on a magistrate-issued warrant. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a good-faith exception should apply.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule require the suppression of evidence obtained by a police officer who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a statute authorizing warrantless administrative searches, which is subsequently found to violate the Fourth Amendment?

No. The Court held that a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea com

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule require the suppression of evidence obtained by a police officer who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a statute authorizing warrantless administrative searches, which is subsequently found to violate the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion

By extending the good-faith exception to reliance on statutes, *Illinois v. Krull* Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labo

Legal Rule

Evidence obtained by a police officer acting in objectively reasonable reliance on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut ali

Legal Analysis

The Court extended the reasoning of *United States v. Leon*, which established Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nost

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to searches conducted
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Hate ads? Verify for LSD+ → Learn More