In the case of Kentucky v. Whorton, 1978, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy. The respondent, Whorton was charged with voluntary manslaughter in Kentucky after he had already been convicted for driving under the influence (DUI) arising from the same incident in which a person died. He argued that being tried for manslaughter constituted double jeopardy as it was based on identical evidence used to convict him of DUI. However, the court disagreed and held that each charge required proof of an additional fact not needed by other; hence they were not "the same offense" constitutionally speaking. Therefore, his subsequent prosecution did not violate Double Jeopardy Clause since both offenses had different elements and facts necessary for conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Kentucky v. Whorton, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of an automobile based on probable cause alone significantly eroded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissent emphasized that the Court had previously established clear guidelines requiring law enforcement officers to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches unless specific exigent circumstances existed. In this case, there were no immediate threats or dangers present which could justify bypassing these requirements. Therefore, according to the dissenters, upholding this search without a warrant constituted an unwarranted expansion of police powers at the expense of individual privacy rights protected by Constitution.