In Brawley v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The defendant, Brawley, was charged with receiving stolen goods, and the evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and could not be used to convict Brawley. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of this amendment. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal proceedings, was applicable in this case. The Court's decision in Brawley v. United States established the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in criminal proceedings. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Brawley v. United States, arguing that the majority had misapplied existing law to reach its conclusion. He argued that under prior Supreme Court precedent, a defendant could not be convicted of larceny if they were unaware of any defect or infirmity in title when taking possession of property from another person. In this case, he believed there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to show that Brawley did not know about any defect in title and thus should have been acquitted on all counts against him. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if it was assumed for argument’s sake that Brawley knew about some issue with the title before taking possession of the goods, his conviction would still be improper because he had no knowledge as to who held superior rights over them; therefore he could not have intended to steal from anyone specifically when making his purchase. As such, Justice Field concluded by urging reversal of Brawley's convictions due to insufficient evidence being presented at trial regarding intent and knowledge required for a valid conviction under applicable law.