In the 1997 case of Hudson v. United States, John Hudson, Larry Baresel and Jack Butler Rackley challenged their convictions for violations of federal banking laws on the grounds that they had been subjected to double jeopardy. The defendants argued that administrative fines previously imposed by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) constituted punishment, thus subsequent criminal prosecutions violated their Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy. However, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that civil penalties do not constitute punishment so as to trigger protections under Double Jeopardy Clause. The court held that these sanctions served remedial purposes rather than punitive ones and were part of separate proceedings with different goals from criminal prosecution - one being regulatory and other punitive.

The dissenting opinion in the case of John Hudson, Larry Baresel, and Jack Butler Rackley v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendants by allowing illegally obtained evidence to be used against them in court. They contended that such a precedent would undermine citizens' protections from unreasonable searches and seizures, as it effectively incentivizes law enforcement agencies to conduct unlawful searches with impunity. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "good faith" exception for police officers who reasonably believe their actions are lawful; arguing instead that this should not apply when officers knowingly or recklessly disregard constitutional requirements during investigations.