In the 1953 case of Adams v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner William G. Adams, who had been convicted for embezzlement by a Maryland court and sentenced to five years imprisonment. The conviction was based on evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure operation conducted at his home without a warrant or consent, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The state courts upheld this conviction arguing that the exclusionary rule - which bars use of illegally obtained evidence - did not apply to state prosecutions but only federal ones. However, when appealed to the Supreme Court, it unanimously reversed this decision stating that such evidence is inadmissible even in state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as it protects against invasions on privacy by all government officials—federal or state—and its protections are enforceable against them all.

In the dissenting opinion for Adams v. Maryland, the justice argued that there was a failure to properly apply the rule of law in this case. The justice believed that Adams' constitutional rights were violated when he was not given an opportunity to challenge his conviction based on newly discovered evidence after his trial had concluded. This new evidence could have potentially exonerated him or led to a lesser sentence, but he was denied due process because of procedural rules set by Maryland's courts which did not allow for such challenges post-trial. The dissenting opinion also criticized the majority's interpretation of federal habeas corpus laws and their application in this case, arguing they should be used as a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment rather than just another step in the appellate process. In conclusion, it is asserted that denying Adams relief under these circumstances undermines faith in our judicial system and fails to uphold principles of fairness and justice.