In the case of Ausbie v. California (1963), the petitioner, Ausbie, was convicted for possession and sale of narcotics in a California state court. He appealed his conviction to the U.S Supreme Court on grounds that evidence used against him had been obtained through an illegal search and seizure by law enforcement officers without a warrant or probable cause, thereby violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court dismissed this claim stating that it lacked jurisdiction because Ausbie failed to provide any substantial federal question for consideration. This meant that he did not sufficiently demonstrate how his constitutional rights were violated under federal law during his trial at the state level.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ausbie v. California argued that the majority's decision to uphold Ausbie's conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that Ausbie had not been given a fair trial because he was denied effective assistance of counsel, which is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. They pointed out several instances where they felt this right had been violated, including when Ausbie’s attorney failed to object to prejudicial statements made by prosecution witnesses and did not adequately cross-examine key witnesses for the prosecution. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence against him was obtained and used at trial without proper safeguards being followed. Therefore, according to them, there were serious procedural errors during his trial which undermined its fairness and reliability.