The U.S. Supreme Court case Gouled v. United States in 1920 revolved around the legality of evidence obtained through government theft, and whether it could be used in court proceedings against a defendant. The plaintiff, Gouled, was convicted for defrauding the government based on documents that were stolen from his office by an undercover agent without a warrant or consent. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that such actions violated Fourth Amendment rights protecting citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures as well as Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination. The court held that any evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in federal courts because it violates constitutional rights - this principle later became known as "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine which excludes any evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure.

In the dissenting opinion for Gouled v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision to exclude evidence obtained through a warrantless search was overly restrictive and not in line with common law principles or practical considerations of criminal investigation. He contended that there should be no absolute rule against using stolen documents as evidence, especially when they are relevant to proving guilt in a criminal case. Instead, he suggested that courts should weigh the seriousness of the crime against any potential harm caused by obtaining and using such evidence illegally. In his view, excluding all unlawfully obtained evidence could hinder effective law enforcement and potentially allow guilty parties to escape justice.