In the case of Hill v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1970 that police officers who mistakenly arrest a person they reasonably believe to be a suspect do not violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures if it turns out that the arrested individual is not actually the suspect. The court's decision was based on an incident where Los Angeles police officers, having probable cause to arrest one man (Miller), instead arrested another man (Hill) at Miller's apartment because they mistook him for Miller. They also seized evidence from this apartment which was later used against both men in their respective trials. Despite Hill’s contention that his mistaken arrest invalidated subsequent evidentiary findings, Justice White delivered the majority opinion stating that “sufficient probability, not certainty” guides Fourth Amendment compliance when determining reasonableness of actions taken by law enforcement officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill v. California, it was argued that the police officers violated Fourth Amendment rights by entering and searching Mr. Hill's apartment without a warrant or his consent. The dissenting justices believed that mistaken identity did not justify this violation of privacy rights, as law enforcement should be held to a higher standard of accuracy when identifying suspects before infringing upon their constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that allowing such mistakes to excuse violations would undermine citizens' trust in law enforcement agencies and erode civil liberties protected under the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "reasonable belief," arguing it could potentially lead to more instances of racial profiling or other forms of discrimination in policing practices.