Carver v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a man named Carver who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home that was conducted without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court and that Carver could not be convicted on the basis of it. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of this amendment. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, was applicable in this case. The Court's decision in Carver v. United States established the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and cannot be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Carver v. United States, arguing that the majority had incorrectly interpreted a provision of the Revised Statutes of 1878. The statute at issue provided for an appeal to be taken from any judgment or decree rendered by a district court in cases involving admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In this case, Carver was convicted on charges related to smuggling goods into California without paying duties due under federal law; he appealed his conviction directly to the Supreme Court based on its appellate jurisdiction over such matters as prescribed by Congress. Justice Field argued that since no final judgment had been entered against Carver in district court, there was no basis for him to appeal directly to the Supreme Court; rather, he should have first sought relief from a circuit court before appealing further up through higher courts if necessary. Therefore, because it appeared that Congress did not intend for appeals like these—involving criminal proceedings—to go straight from district courts up through higher levels of review without passing through intermediate circuits first, Justice Field concluded that Carver's direct appeal should be dismissed and remanded back down so it could proceed according to congressional intent.