In the case of Chapman v. United States, 1960, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a search warrant could be issued based solely on an affidavit that stated illegal whiskey was being stored in a house without any direct evidence to support this claim. The defendant argued that there was no probable cause for issuing the warrant as it relied only on hearsay and suspicion rather than concrete facts. However, the court upheld its validity stating that affidavits should be judged by their factual content and not by whether they meet technical requirements. It also held that if substantial basis for crediting hearsay is presented then it can provide sufficient grounds for believing crime has been committed at premises searched under validly issued warrant.

In the dissenting opinion for Chapman v. United States, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's interpretation of the Narcotic Control Act was too broad and violated due process rights. He contended that Congress did not intend to punish drug addicts with severe penalties simply for possessing drugs but aimed at punishing those who trafficked narcotics. The justice believed that interpreting possession as a punishable act would lead to harsh sentences for minor offenses, which he considered unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, he asserted that such an interpretation could potentially criminalize innocent behavior if someone unknowingly possessed a controlled substance. Therefore, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's ruling upholding Chapman’s conviction and sentence.