In the 1912 case, Matter of the Application of Spencer, ex parte, an inmate named Spencer sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court. He argued that his imprisonment was unlawful because he had been denied due process during his trial. Specifically, he claimed that evidence used against him in court had been obtained through illegal search and seizure by police officers who did not have a warrant at the time they searched his home. The Supreme Court rejected Spencer's argument and refused to grant him a writ of habeas corpus. They held that even if evidence is obtained illegally by law enforcement officials without a proper warrant or probable cause for suspicion, it can still be admissible in court under certain circumstances as long as it is relevant to proving guilt or innocence.

In the dissenting opinion for Matter of the Application of Spencer, ex parte, 1912, it was argued that there were significant issues with how evidence had been obtained and used in this case. The dissenting justices felt that certain pieces of evidence should not have been admissible due to violations of constitutional rights. They also expressed concern over potential bias in the jury selection process and believed that these factors could have unfairly influenced the outcome of the trial. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation on extradition laws and its application on this case which led to a violation of defendant's rights under due process clause. Overall, their main contention was about upholding individual liberties against possible state abuses or procedural errors during trials.