In Durham v. United States (1970), the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a criminal defendant's right to due process had been violated by the use of evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. The case involved a man named James Durham, who was convicted for possession of illegal narcotics based on evidence found during a warrantless search of his car after he had been arrested for another crime. On appeal, Durham argued that this evidence should have been excluded because it was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed with Durham’s argument and upheld his conviction. The court ruled that while the Fourth Amendment does protect against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all warrantless searches are automatically considered unreasonable under law enforcement circumstances where there is probable cause or exigent circumstances exist such as risk of destruction or removal of potential evidences before obtaining warrants from courts. This ruling reaffirmed previous decisions establishing exceptions to the requirement for a warrant in certain situations - including when police officers have reasonable grounds to believe that contraband may be present in someone's vehicle.

In the dissenting opinion for Durham v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an insanity defense was flawed. The dissent focused on two main points: first, it criticized the use of a "product" test in determining criminal responsibility; and secondly, it questioned whether there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Durham was sane at the time of his alleged crime. The justice believed that using such a product test could potentially lead to arbitrary results and undermine legal principles related to mens rea (criminal intent). Furthermore, he expressed concern about how mental health professionals' testimonies were used during trials - arguing they often held too much sway over juries despite their inherent subjectivity and potential bias. He also pointed out inconsistencies in expert testimony regarding Durham's sanity which raised doubts about its reliability as proof beyond reasonable doubt.