In the 1983 Supreme Court case Dixson v. United States, the court ruled on whether or not a defendant's silence after receiving Miranda warnings could be used as evidence of guilt. The defendants, Dixson and Foster, were arrested for armed robbery and murder but remained silent when they were read their rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). At trial, prosecutors argued that this silence was an implicit admission of guilt. The defense contended that using post-arrest silence as evidence violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions in a 5-4 decision stating that once suspects are given their Miranda warnings - which inform them of their right to remain silent - any subsequent silence can be considered by a jury as an indication of guilt if it is found to be so under the circumstances. This ruling clarified how courts should interpret suspect behavior following arrest and receipt of legal rights information.

In the dissenting opinion for Dixson v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold the convictions of two defendants based on evidence obtained by a government informant violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that when an individual invites another into his home, he does not forfeit his expectation of privacy because he runs the risk that this person could be a government agent. The justice believed it was wrong to equate risk with consent in this context as it would undermine individuals' constitutional protections from unwarranted intrusions into their homes by law enforcement officials. Furthermore, Justice Stevens expressed concern about potential abuses of power if police were allowed to use informants in such ways without any checks or balances.