In the 1989 case of Alabama v. Vanessa Rose White, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over child custody and parental rights. The State of Alabama had removed White's children from her care due to allegations of neglect and abuse. After an initial hearing, the state court awarded temporary custody to the Department of Human Resources (DHR). However, it was later discovered that DHR failed to provide proper notice for this hearing as required by law. Consequently, White appealed on grounds that she was denied due process because she did not receive adequate notice or opportunity to be heard before losing custody of her children. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vanessa Rose White stating that parents have a fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause which protects their interest in maintaining custody and control over their children unless they are unfit parents. Therefore, any action taken by a state agency must comply with procedural requirements including providing sufficient notice prior to removing children from their homes.

In the dissenting opinion for Alabama v. Vanessa Rose White, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of a purse during an automobile stop violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices believed that there were no exigent circumstances justifying such a search without obtaining a warrant first. They contended that police officers had ample opportunity to secure the purse while they obtained a proper search warrant, thus respecting White's constitutional rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view on “automobile exception,” stating this case did not involve searching an automobile but rather personal property within it - which should require higher privacy considerations. Therefore, in their perspective, upholding this kind of intrusion sets dangerous precedent for future cases involving personal belongings inside vehicles.