In the case of Darin Ryburn et al. v. George R. Huff et al., 2011, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of police officers who conducted a warrantless search on suspicion that a student had brought explosives to school. The Burbank Police Department received an anonymous tip about Vincent Huff, and when they went to his home for questioning, his parents refused them entry without a warrant but agreed to bring him out for questioning instead. After some time passed with no sign of Vincent or his parents reappearing as promised, coupled with their evasive behavior during initial questioning and knowledge from previous visits that there were firearms in the house; fearing immediate danger, officers entered the residence without obtaining a search warrant first which led to this lawsuit by Huffs claiming violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court held that under exigent circumstances exception where law enforcement believes an immediate need exists due its nature being such that delay necessary to obtain a warrant would gravely endanger life or risk destruction of evidence or flight from prosecution - it was reasonable for these experienced officers based on what they knew at time (including family's unusual conduct) to suspect imminent violence thus justifying their actions.

In the dissenting opinion for Ryburn v. Huff, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to grant qualified immunity to police officers who conducted a warrantless search of a student's home was incorrect. She contended that there were no exigent circumstances justifying such an intrusion without a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment. The mere speculation or unfounded suspicion of potential violence at school did not constitute an immediate need for action in her view. Furthermore, she criticized the Court’s summary reversal method and its failure to give full consideration to lower court findings on factual matters related with this case.