In the case of Avansino et al. v. New York, 1966, the appellants were convicted for promoting gambling and possessing gambling records in violation of New York's Penal Law. They argued that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated because police officers seized evidence from a private home without a search warrant or consent to enter. The Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional error as the entry into the house was with permission and not forced; therefore, it did not violate any Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court also noted that even if there had been an intrusion under false pretenses (as claimed by one appellant who stated he only allowed entry because officers falsely identified themselves as friends), this would still be irrelevant since they found incriminating evidence in plain view immediately upon entering - which does not require a warrant according to previous rulings.

The dissenting opinion in Avansino et al. v. New York argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring non-resident corporations to designate an agent for service of process within the state was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed this requirement violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce and unfairly discriminating against out-of-state businesses. They contended that it was unreasonable for a corporation, merely because it does business in another state, to be subjected to such requirements without any showing that they are necessary or appropriate for protecting local interests or ensuring fair play in legal proceedings involving those corporations.