The U.S. Supreme Court case Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington in 2005 revolved around the admissibility of a 911 call as evidence in court, specifically regarding whether it violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment which gives defendants the right to confront their accusers. The defendant, Adrian Davis, was accused of assaulting his girlfriend who had made a 911 call during an ongoing domestic dispute but did not testify at trial. The recording was used as evidence instead and he was convicted based on this testimony from an unavailable witness (the girlfriend). On appeal to the Supreme Court, it ruled that statements made during a "non-testimonial" emergency situation like a 911 call could be admitted without violating confrontation rights because they are not intended for future prosecution but immediate assistance; hence they do not constitute testimonial hearsay.

In the dissenting opinion for Adrian Martell Davis v. Washington, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the majority's decision to allow testimonial statements as evidence violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. He contended that this clause was designed to ensure criminal defendants had a right to confront their accusers in court and cross-examine them. By allowing recorded 911 calls or other out-of-court statements into evidence without giving defendants an opportunity for cross-examination, he believed it undermined these constitutional protections. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's definition of "testimonial" as vague and inconsistent with historical understanding, arguing instead for a broader interpretation which would include any statement made with awareness that it may be used in prosecution.