In the case of Illinois v. Charles McArthur in 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled that police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they prevented a suspect from entering his home unaccompanied while they obtained a search warrant. The incident began when McArthur's wife told police there were drugs hidden inside their trailer. Police asked McArthur to step outside and then blocked him from reentering without supervision for two hours while they secured a search warrant, fearing he might destroy evidence if left alone in the house. Upon obtaining and executing the warrant, police found marijuana under a couch cushion and charged him with possession of cannabis with intent to deliver it unlawfully - charges which he sought to have dismissed on grounds that his rights had been violated by being barred entry into his own home without due cause or process. However, both lower courts upheld this action as reasonable given circumstances at hand; these decisions were affirmed by Supreme Court justices who concluded such temporary restraint was justified considering potential risk of loss or destruction of evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois v. Charles McArthur, Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, argued that the police's actions constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. They disagreed with the majority's view that preventing potential destruction of evidence justified a warrantless seizure in this case. The dissenters contended that there was no immediate danger or exigent circumstances to justify such action without a warrant. Furthermore, they believed it was not reasonable to prevent someone from entering their own home while waiting for a search warrant based on mere suspicion of criminal activity inside. This approach could potentially allow law enforcement officers to seize homes indefinitely until obtaining warrants which would be against constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.