The case of Etchieson v. Texas in 1963 revolved around the issue of whether a state could legally require an individual to pay a poll tax as a prerequisite for voting, which was challenged by Etchieson on grounds that it violated his Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of substantial federal question." This meant that they did not see any significant constitutional issues raised by the appellant's claim. Therefore, at this point in time, the court upheld Texas' right to impose such requirements for voter eligibility. However, two years later in 1965, with passage of Voting Rights Act and ratification of Twenty-fourth Amendment prohibiting poll taxes in elections for federal officials effectively overruled this decision.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Etchieson v. Texas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an arguably illegal search and seizure was fundamentally flawed. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that law enforcement officers had not established probable cause before conducting their search, making any evidence they found inadmissible in court. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Mapp v. Ohio (1961), arguing it should have been applied to exclude illegally obtained evidence from state criminal trials as well as federal ones. In essence, these justices felt that by allowing such practices to continue unchecked, it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.