United States v. Crusell was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Crusell, who was charged with the possession of counterfeit coins. The coins were discovered during a search of Crusell's home, which was conducted without a warrant. Crusell argued that the evidence should be excluded from the trial because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was admissible and that Crusell could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not provide a remedy for the exclusion of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, was not applicable in this case. The Court's decision in United States v. Crusell established that the exclusionary rule does not apply to criminal cases and that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure can be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that the exclusionary rule does not apply to criminal cases.

In United States v. Crusell, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that imposed an additional duty on imported goods violated the Constitution's prohibition against bills of attainder. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because Congress had acted within its power to regulate foreign commerce and impose taxes for revenue purposes. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that the statute in question constituted a bill of attainder as it singled out certain individuals or groups for punishment without any judicial proceedings or trial by jury. He argued further that such legislation was prohibited under both Article I Section 9 and 10 of the Constitution which explicitly forbid bills of attainder and ex post facto laws respectively. Thus, he concluded that Congress had exceeded its authority in enacting such legislation and should be struck down as unconstitutional