In the 1967 case Jones v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant could not be tried for both robbery and felony murder based on the same act. The court held that this constituted double jeopardy, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The decision was made in favor of Mr. Jones who had been convicted in federal district court for both armed robbery and felony murder following a bank heist where an accomplice killed a bank guard during their escape attempt.

In the dissenting opinion for Jones v. United States (1967), Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to extend Fourth Amendment protections to individuals who are "legitimately on premises" is too broad and lacks a clear limiting principle. He contended that this interpretation could potentially cover any person in any place, thereby diluting the specific protection intended by the framers of the Constitution - namely, protecting people in their own homes from unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he disagreed with applying these protections based solely on an individual’s presence at a location without considering other factors such as ownership or control over it. This approach would lead to unpredictable results and create confusion about when someone can claim Fourth Amendment rights. Instead, he suggested focusing on traditional property law concepts like possession or control which provide clearer guidelines for determining whether someone has a legitimate expectation of privacy deserving constitutional protection.