In the case of Florida v. Bostick, 1990, the U.S Supreme Court had to decide whether a police search on a bus violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The defendant, Terrance Bostick, was traveling on an interstate bus when two officers boarded and asked if they could search his luggage for drugs. He consented but later argued that he felt compelled to comply due to their authoritative presence in such confined space. However, the court ruled in favor of Florida by stating that as long as law enforcement does not use coercive or intimidating behavior to obtain consent for a search from an individual who is free to decline their request without penalty - it doesn't constitute violation of Fourth Amendment rights even within confines like buses where one cannot move freely away from police presence.

In the dissenting opinion for Florida v. Bostick, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect citizens' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that a reasonable person would not feel free to decline officers' requests for consent in situations like bus sweeps because of the inherently coercive nature of police presence and authority. The fact that an individual is confined within a small space such as a bus further amplifies this sense of coercion. Therefore, he believed any "consent" given under these circumstances should be considered involuntary and thus invalid under the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, he criticized the majority's reliance on whether or not law enforcement had followed standard procedures during their interaction with Bostick rather than considering if those procedures themselves were constitutionally sound.