In Howard v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving an individual named Howard who was convicted for embezzlement while serving as a public official in the Post Office Department. The main issue revolved around whether or not certain evidence should have been admitted during his trial. This evidence included records and documents related to his employment that were held by the department he worked for. The court ruled against Howard, stating that these documents were admissible as they provided necessary context and proof of his criminal activities while in office. Furthermore, it was determined that since these records belonged to the government agency rather than being personal property of Howard's, their use did not infringe upon any constitutional rights regarding self-incrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for Howard v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens. He contended that any evidence procured by such means should be deemed inadmissible in court due to its unconstitutional nature. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential abuses of power by law enforcement officials if they were allowed to conduct warrantless searches without fear of legal repercussions or limitations. This ruling, according to him, could set a dangerous precedent where personal privacy is sacrificed at the expense of criminal investigations - thereby undermining fundamental civil liberties enshrined within the Constitution itself.