In the 1902 case of Bird v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a person could be convicted for aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime if they were not physically present at its execution. The defendant, Bird, had been charged with assisting in smuggling Chinese immigrants into Washington state from Canada. Although he did not personally transport them across the border, evidence suggested that he arranged their transportation and received payment for it. The court ruled that physical presence is not necessary to convict someone as an accomplice to a crime; rather one's involvement or participation can suffice even if indirect or remote. Therefore, despite his absence during actual smuggling act, Bird’s role in planning and facilitating it made him liable under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Bird v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissent contended that any evidence procured in such a manner should be deemed inadmissible in court as it is tainted by its unlawful acquisition. They further asserted that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent, effectively condoning violations of constitutional rights by law enforcement agencies under the guise of criminal investigation. This could potentially lead to widespread abuse and misuse of power without any legal recourse for those affected. Therefore, they believed this ruling undermined fundamental principles upon which American jurisprudence rests - respect for individual liberties and rule of law.