In the case of Keney v. New York in 1966, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for involuntary commitment of individuals deemed "dangerous" due to mental illness violated their constitutional rights. The petitioner, Keney, argued that his confinement under this law constituted an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment and deprived him of liberty without due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court ruled against him stating that states have a legitimate interest in protecting both society at large and mentally ill individuals themselves from potential harm caused by their condition. Therefore, when such determinations are made following appropriate medical diagnosis and judicial review processes - as had been done in this case - they do not violate constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Keney v. New York, the justice argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case as it did not involve any deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The justice believed that the petitioner's right to a fair trial had not been compromised and thus disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn his conviction. They contended that while some aspects of police conduct may have been questionable, they were not so egregious as to warrant a reversal of judgment. Furthermore, they asserted that even if certain evidence should have been excluded from trial on grounds of improper acquisition by law enforcement officials, its inclusion did not necessarily result in an unfair trial given other substantial incriminating evidence against the defendant.