Clawson 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 was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The case arose when the defendant, Clawson, was arrested for selling liquor without a license. The arresting officers had searched his premises without a warrant and seized evidence of the crime. Clawson argued that the evidence should be excluded because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court disagreed, holding that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, was not applicable in this case because the officers had acted in good faith and had not acted with any malicious intent. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not to punish innocent officers. The Court's decision in Clawson v. United States established that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure could be used in a criminal trial, provided that the officers had acted in good faith and without malicious intent. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of the law of search and seizure.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Clawson v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for the seizure of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore, he noted that if such a law were allowed to stand it could lead to arbitrary seizures and confiscations with impunity as there is no judicial review available before or after such actions are taken. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that allowing such laws would be contrary to all principles established in prior Supreme Court cases regarding constitutional protections and should not be upheld under any circumstances.