In Daube v. United States (1932), the petitioner, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was convicted of smuggling narcotics into the country from Mexico and sentenced to two years in prison. The conviction was based on evidence obtained through wiretapping his phone without a warrant by federal agents who suspected him of illegal activities. On appeal, Daube argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction with an 8-1 majority ruling that wiretap evidence did not constitute an unlawful search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it didn't involve physical intrusion into any space protected by it such as homes or offices; hence no constitutional rights were violated in obtaining such evidence. This decision expanded law enforcement's ability to use electronic surveillance in investigations but also sparked debates about privacy rights which eventually led to changes in laws governing wiretaps.

In the dissenting opinion for Daube v. United States, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold Daube's conviction was incorrect because it relied on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. He contended that federal agents violated Daube's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his home without a warrant and seized documents used in his trial for tax evasion. The justice believed this constituted a gross violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, which should have rendered any evidence obtained inadmissible in court. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority’s ruling affirming Daube’s conviction based on such unlawfully procured evidence.