In Camara v. United States (1959), the Supreme Court examined whether a person could refuse to answer questions in a tax investigation on the grounds of self-incrimination. The case involved Abelardo Camara, who was summoned by an IRS agent for questioning about his income tax returns and refused to answer certain questions invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He was then charged with contempt of court for refusing to comply with the summons issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 7602, which allows IRS agents to summon taxpayers or their records. The Supreme Court ruled that individuals have no absolute right not to be criminally prosecuted if they provide information during an administrative inquiry such as this one. However, it also held that any criminal prosecution based on evidence obtained through such inquiries must respect constitutional safeguards including immunity from prosecution using compelled testimony or its fruits. Therefore, while Mr.Camara's refusal did constitute contempt of court because he had no blanket Fifth Amendment protection against answering all questions at a non-judicial proceeding like this one; he would still have been protected from being prosecuted based on those answers unless granted immunity.

In the dissenting opinion for Camara v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to require a warrant for administrative searches infringes upon the government's ability to protect public health and safety effectively. The dissenters believed that such inspections are not meant to uncover criminal activity but rather ensure compliance with safety regulations. They contended that these types of inspections have historically been conducted without warrants, and requiring one could slow down or hinder necessary checks on potential hazards like fire risks or structural issues in buildings. Furthermore, they expressed concern about placing an additional burden on already overloaded courts by necessitating them to issue thousands of warrants for routine inspections. In their view, this requirement would also potentially expose inspectors and municipalities to lawsuits if something were missed during an inspection due to delays caused by obtaining a warrant.