In the 2003 case of Illinois v. Gregory Fisher, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a police officer's warrantless entry into a home violated Fourth Amendment rights if it was done with the intention of preventing destruction of evidence. The incident began when an officer pursued Fisher after observing him commit a minor traffic violation. When Fisher ran into his apartment building, the officer followed and entered without obtaining a search warrant because he believed that Fisher might destroy drug evidence. Upon entering, he found drugs in plain view and arrested Fisher on drug charges. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois by affirming that under exigent circumstances - situations requiring immediate action such as imminent danger or potential loss or destruction of evidence - law enforcement officers can enter homes without warrants while pursuing fleeing felons. This decision upheld previous rulings which established that hot pursuit constitutes an exigent circumstance exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement for lawful searches and seizures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Illinois v. Gregory Fisher argued that the majority's decision to uphold Fisher's conviction, despite potential violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that the police had not followed proper procedures during their search and seizure operations, which led to Fisher being linked to a crime scene through DNA evidence obtained from an unrelated arrest. They contended that this constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment because there was no probable cause or warrant at the time of collection. Furthermore, they disagreed with applying "inevitable discovery" doctrine as it could potentially encourage law enforcement officers to disregard constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures by justifying them after-the-fact based on subsequent developments in investigations.