Haldeman et al. v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved two defendants, Haldeman and Miller, who were charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict them was obtained through a search of their home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that the defendants could not be convicted on the basis of it. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained in this case was obtained in violation of that amendment. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was applicable in this case. The Court's decision in Haldeman et al. v. United States established the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in criminal trials. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Haldeman et al. v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions and would lead to an unjust result for the defendants. He argued that Congress had not intended to punish those who were merely present at a meeting where illegal activities occurred but did not actively participate in them; instead, they should only be held liable if they aided or abetted such activities. Furthermore, he noted that previous cases had established precedent allowing individuals to be convicted of aiding and abetting without being physically present when a crime is committed; thus, it was unnecessary for the court to extend this principle further by holding people accountable simply because they were present at a meeting where criminal activity took place. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that extending liability beyond active participation would create an unfair situation wherein innocent bystanders could potentially face legal consequences due to their mere presence at meetings which later became associated with criminal activity.