Connection lost
Server error
Illinois v. Perkins Case Brief
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
tl;dr: An incarcerated suspect confessed to an undercover agent posing as a cellmate. The Court held that because the suspect was unaware he was speaking to police, the coercive atmosphere of a custodial interrogation was absent, and thus no Miranda warnings were required.
Legal Significance: This case establishes a major exception to the Miranda rule, clarifying that the “custodial interrogation” trigger requires the suspect to be aware they are being questioned by a state agent, not merely that they are in custody and being questioned.
Illinois v. Perkins 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
Respondent Lloyd Perkins was incarcerated on aggravated battery charges. Law enforcement suspected him of an unrelated, unsolved murder. To investigate, police placed an undercover agent, John Parisi, and an informant in Perkins’s cellblock. Parisi and the informant posed as fellow inmates who were planning an escape. During a conversation about the escape plan, Parisi asked Perkins if he had ever “done” anybody, ostensibly to gauge his reliability for the plan. Perkins, believing Parisi was a fellow inmate, voluntarily provided a detailed account of the murder. At no point did Parisi identify himself as a law enforcement officer or provide Perkins with Miranda warnings. Perkins was subsequently charged with the murder and moved to suppress his statements to Parisi, arguing they were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights under Miranda.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Must an undercover law enforcement officer provide Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?
No. The Court held that the statements are admissible. The essential ingredients 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
IRAC Legal Analysis
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
Must an undercover law enforcement officer provide Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before asking questions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response?
Conclusion
This decision establishes a significant "undercover agent" exception to Miranda, holding that 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 reprehender
Legal Rule
Miranda warnings are not required when a suspect in custody is unaware 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 c
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the purpose of the Miranda warnings: to 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, se
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Miranda warnings are not required when an incarcerated suspect speaks to