In the 1969 case Carlos v. New York, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to immigration law and constitutional rights. The petitioner, Mr. Carlos, a resident alien from Cuba was ordered deported due to his conviction for two crimes involving moral turpitude under federal immigration laws. He challenged this order on grounds that he had not been advised of his right to counsel during deportation proceedings as required by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. However, the court held that such protections were not applicable in administrative proceedings like deportation hearings which are civil rather than criminal in nature; thus they do not trigger Sixth Amendment safeguards including right to counsel.

The dissenting opinion in the Carlos v. New York case argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent, particularly those related to search and seizure laws under the Fourth Amendment. The dissenters believed that there were insufficient grounds for police officers to stop and frisk individuals without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. They contended that such actions violated citizens' constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, which could lead to potential abuses by law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about racial profiling implications as well as potential erosion of public trust in law enforcement agencies due to perceived arbitrary or discriminatory practices. Overall, they maintained that any intrusion on an individual's privacy should be based on concrete evidence rather than mere hunches or generalizations.