In the case of Boyes v. United States in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue regarding self-incrimination and immunity from prosecution. The defendant, Boyes, was convicted for perjury after he lied to a grand jury about his involvement with Communist activities. He appealed his conviction arguing that he had been granted immunity from prosecution when subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court as well. The court held that while witnesses before congressional committees are indeed protected against being prosecuted based on their testimony, they are not immune from prosecution for perjury committed during such testimony.

In the dissenting opinion for Boyes v. United States, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was in direct violation of Fourth Amendment rights. He contended that allowing such evidence to be used would only encourage law enforcement officials to continue conducting unlawful searches, thereby undermining citizens' constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on a "good faith" exception as it essentially permitted violations of constitutional rights if officers believed they were acting within their authority. In his view, this approach dangerously eroded civil liberties by placing too much trust in individual police officers' judgment rather than upholding clear legal standards designed to protect individuals from government overreach.