In Clason v. Indiana (1938), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a case involving the legality of search and seizure procedures by law enforcement officials. The appellant, Clason, was convicted for possession of policy slips in violation of an Indiana statute after police officers searched his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to convict him at trial. On appeal to the Supreme Court, he argued that this constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The court upheld Clason's conviction ruling that no federal rights were violated as there was no involvement or action from any federal officer during the incident; it was purely a state matter. The court stated that while states cannot infringe upon federally protected rights, they are not required to enforce them in exactly the same manner as federal courts would do so. This decision reinforced previous rulings which held that protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under Federal Constitution’s Fourth Amendment did not apply directly to actions taken by state officials unless there is some form of direct or indirect involvement from federal authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Clason v. Indiana, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring fingerprinting before bail was granted violated an individual’s constitutional rights. He contended that this requirement infringed upon the presumption of innocence and right against self-incrimination protected by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he asserted that it also breached due process under both federal and state constitutions as it imposed an additional burden on those seeking bail without any clear justification or necessity established by lawmakers. In his view, such laws could potentially lead to abuses of power and should be subject to strict scrutiny in order to safeguard fundamental liberties from unwarranted encroachments.