In 'Krull,' the Supreme Court considered whether the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence obtained by police who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a statute, subsequently found violative of the fourth amendment, that authorized warrantless administrative searches. The Court held the exclusionary rule should not be applied. New York v. Burger also addressed the closely-regulated-business exception as applied to the junkyard industry. In this case, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a New York statute that authorized the warrantless inspection of automobile junkyards. 'Krull' and 'Burger' ignore the fourth amendment guarantees of the citizenry's right of privacy in commercial and personal premises. The Supreme Court should rethink its analysis of the closely-regulated-business exception. The issues of probable cause and reasonableness should be considered apart from utilitarian claims of administrative necessity. The court should re-examine its conclusion that the schemes provide an adequate substitute for a warrant. The present reliance on a notice theory and implied consent are wholly inadequate because these justifications constitute nothing more than mere acquiescence to State power. 215 footnotes.