In Bevan v. Krieger, 1932, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving extradition procedures between states. The petitioner, Bevan was arrested in California for crimes he allegedly committed in Illinois and sought to challenge his extradition back to Illinois. He argued that the Governor of California had not received proper documentation from Illinois requesting his return as required by federal law governing interstate extraditions (the Extradition Clause). However, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction over this matter because it involved state actions rather than federal ones. It further noted that while governors must demand fugitives' returns under federal law, they also have discretion about whether or not to comply with such demands based on their own judgment about what is best for their state's interests.

In the dissenting opinion for Bevan v. Krieger, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a search warrant and seizure of liquor in a private residence under Prohibition laws violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices believed that there was insufficient evidence presented to justify issuing a search warrant, as mere suspicion or belief is not enough under constitutional law. They contended that upholding such warrants would set dangerous precedent by allowing police officers too much discretion in determining probable cause for searches without sufficient oversight from neutral magistrates. This could potentially lead to abuses of power and infringements on citizens' privacy rights.