In the 1896 case of Brown v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving maritime law and salvage rights. The dispute arose when two American vessels, one owned by Brown and another by Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Company, both attempted to salvage a sunken Spanish ship off the coast of Florida. Both parties claimed exclusive right to the salvage operation based on their respective contracts with Spain's consul general in New York City. The court held that under international law, it is not necessary for an individual or entity to have physical possession of property in order for them to claim ownership over it; rather they must only demonstrate intent and capacity to take control over said property. In this case, since both parties had valid contracts with Spain’s consul general granting them permission for recovery operations but neither party was able to establish complete dominance over the site before litigation began - each party was entitled proportionate shares from salvaging efforts. This ruling established important precedent regarding maritime law as well as clarified legal principles around possession and ownership within U.S jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He contended that allowing such evidence would encourage law enforcement officials to disregard citizens' constitutional rights in their pursuit of criminal convictions. Furthermore, he believed this ruling undermined the principle that it is better for guilty individuals to go free than for innocent ones to be unjustly convicted due to illegally obtained evidence. Therefore, he disagreed with the court's decision and expressed his concern about its potential implications on future cases involving similar circumstances.