In the 1990 case of Cathy Burns v. Rick Reed, Burns, a Kentucky prison inmate, sued Reed, a prison official under Section 1983 for violation of her Eighth Amendment rights. She alleged that she was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment due to inadequate medical care while incarcerated. The District Court dismissed her claim on grounds that she failed to show "deliberate indifference" by the officials towards her medical needs as required by Estelle v. Gamble (1976). On appeal in Sixth Circuit court however, it was ruled that deliberate indifference is not necessary when an inmate alleges denial rather than delay or interference with needed treatment; hence remanding the case back for further proceedings at district level.

In the dissenting opinion for Cathy Burns v. Rick Reed, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of Burns' purse was inconsistent with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The justice contended that police officers had no justifiable reason to believe that Burns posed an immediate threat or possessed evidence related to her boyfriend's arrest, which would have justified a warrantless search under established precedents. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of New York v. Belton as allowing any search incident to an arrest without considering whether it is reasonable in each specific context. They also criticized their colleagues for expanding this rule beyond its original intent and scope by applying it even when there is no risk of harm or destruction of evidence involved.