In the case of Gambino et al. v. United States, 1927, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure by federal officers could not be used in a federal court trial. The defendants were charged with transporting alcohol during Prohibition but argued that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when police searched their car without a warrant or probable cause. The lower courts had allowed this evidence to be presented at trial which resulted in convictions for both men. However, upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was determined that any evidence obtained illegally should have been excluded from the proceedings as per protections guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the dissenting opinion for Gambino et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the Fourth Amendment should not be applied to prohibit evidence obtained through warrantless searches at national borders or their functional equivalents from being used in federal court proceedings. They contended that such an interpretation of the amendment would unduly hamper law enforcement efforts and undermine national security interests. The justices believed that border searches were a necessary tool for preventing illegal immigration and smuggling activities, which they viewed as serious threats to public safety and order. They also noted that these types of searches had been widely accepted throughout history and across different jurisdictions, suggesting a broad consensus about their legality and appropriateness under various circumstances.