In the case of Illinois v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court examined whether police officers violated a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by entering his apartment without a warrant based on consent from someone who did not live there but had access to it. The court ruled in favor of Illinois, stating that if law enforcement reasonably believes that an individual has authority over premises and gives permission for entry, then no violation occurs even if it later emerges that this person didn't have such authority. In this instance, although Rodriguez's girlfriend did not technically live at the apartment and therefore lacked legal standing to permit their entry, her possession of keys and personal belongings within made it reasonable for officers to believe she could give them lawful consent.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois v. Rodriguez, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a significant departure from previous Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. He contended that the police should not be able to rely on apparent authority to justify warrantless searches when they have been misled about actual authority by third parties who do not possess it themselves. According to him, this approach undermines individuals' privacy rights and allows law enforcement officers too much discretion in deciding whether or not to obtain a search warrant based on potentially unreliable information. Furthermore, he expressed concern that such an interpretation of consent could lead to abuses of power and violations of constitutional rights if left unchecked.