Connection lost
Server error
Kristin A. Greenawalt v. Indiana Department of Corrections, William K. Kromann, and Kathy J. Lisby 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: A public employee was required to take a probing psychological test to keep her job. She sued, claiming it was an unconstitutional search. The court held that mere questioning, even if highly invasive of privacy, does not constitute a ‘search’ under the Fourth Amendment.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches does not extend to government-compelled questioning, distinguishing it from physical or technological intrusions and channeling such privacy claims toward other potential remedies like state tort law or substantive due process.
Kristin A. Greenawalt v. Indiana Department of Corrections, William K. Kromann, and Kathy J. Lisby 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
Kristin Greenawalt, a research analyst for the Indiana Department of Corrections, was told two years into her employment that she must submit to a psychological examination to keep her job. Greenawalt’s position did not involve contact with prisoners, carrying a weapon, or access to state secrets. She complied with the demand and took a two-hour test that inquired into her personality, psychological adjustments, and health-related issues. Greenawalt subsequently filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Department and two officials, alleging the mandatory test constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. She also brought supplemental state law claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed the federal claims, ruling the Department was not a ‘person’ under § 1983 and the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established. Greenawalt appealed the dismissal of her damages claim against the individual defendants.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a mandatory psychological examination of a public employee, which involves only questioning and no physical contact or technological surveillance, constitute a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
No. The court held that a psychological test consisting of mere questioning 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 ulla
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
Does a mandatory psychological examination of a public employee, which involves only questioning and no physical contact or technological surveillance, constitute a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?
Conclusion
This decision firmly limits the scope of a Fourth Amendment 'search' 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
Legal Rule
The act of putting questions to a person, even when skillfully designed 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 volupta
Legal Analysis
Writing for the court, Judge Posner first acknowledged that the Fourth Amendment's 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 dolo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A government-mandated psychological test that involves only questioning is **not a