In Harris v. United States (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained by federal officers during a house search, which was conducted without a warrant but with the owner's voluntary consent, is admissible in court. The case involved an individual named Harris who had been convicted of possessing forged securities after police found counterfeit money orders at his home during a consensual search. He appealed on grounds that he did not voluntarily give consent to the search and therefore it violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that since there was no coercion or duress involved in obtaining permission for the search from Harris, it did not infringe upon his constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Harris v. United States, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens by allowing police officers to seize evidence without a warrant during an arrest. He contended that this ruling expanded law enforcement powers beyond what was intended by the framers of the Constitution and could lead to abuses of power. Justice Black also disagreed with how broadly "plain view" doctrine was applied in this case, stating it should only apply when illegal items are immediately apparent without further search or intrusion into personal property. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential erosion of individual liberties if such practices were allowed to continue unchecked.