In Bumper v. North Carolina, 1968, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a search conducted by law enforcement officials cannot be justified on the basis of consent if that consent was given only after an official falsely claimed to have a search warrant. The case involved a black teenager named Nathaniel Bumper who was convicted for rape based on evidence found during such a search. His grandmother had allowed the police to enter her home and conduct their investigation after they asserted having a warrant when in fact they did not possess one at all. The court held this as unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures without proper warrants or probable cause, thereby reversing Bumper's conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Bumper v. North Carolina, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to suppress evidence due to lack of voluntary consent was misguided. He contended that there was no coercion or intimidation involved in obtaining permission from Bumper’s grandmother to search her home where he lived and where the rifle used in a rape case had been found. The police had obtained a warrant but did not use it as they were granted access by his grandmother who owned the house. Harlan believed this should have sufficed as valid consent, regardless of whether she knew she could refuse entry or not. Furthermore, he asserted that even if her consent wasn't fully informed, it didn’t necessarily mean it was coerced or involuntary under Fourth Amendment standards which prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures.