In the case of Greenwald v. Wisconsin in 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning self-incrimination and right to counsel. The defendant, Mr. Greenwald, was convicted for burglary after he confessed during police interrogation without having been informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and have an attorney present. He appealed his conviction arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as established by Miranda v. Arizona (1966). However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that Miranda did not apply retroactively to cases decided before its ruling. The U.S Supreme Court granted certiorari but affirmed the decision of lower court with a 5-3 vote (one justice abstained), holding that their previous ruling in Johnson v New Jersey (1966) had already determined that Miranda would only apply prospectively - i.e., only to cases where trials began after June 13th, 1966; thus excluding Greenwald's case which started prior this date.

In the dissenting opinion for Greenwald v. Wisconsin, it was argued that the majority's decision to overturn a state court conviction based on an alleged violation of constitutional rights was inappropriate. The dissenters believed that there were no grounds to claim that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated during his arrest and subsequent search by police officers. They maintained that law enforcement officials acted within their authority and followed proper procedures when they arrested and searched Greenwald after he fled from them in a stolen vehicle. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that evidence obtained during this search should be excluded from trial proceedings due to supposed constitutional violations. In their view, excluding such crucial evidence would undermine law enforcement efforts and compromise public safety without providing any significant protection for individual liberties or legal principles.