Kihlberg v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Kihlberg, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict Kihlberg was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. Kihlberg argued that the evidence should not be used against him because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed with Kihlberg and held that the evidence should not be used against him. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained in this case was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule should apply in this case. The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule was necessary to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and to ensure that the government does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court's decision in Kihlberg v. United States established the exclusionary rule as a way to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court's decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kihlberg v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a statute which allowed for an increase of punishment after conviction, as it would be tantamount to punishing someone twice for the same offense. Furthermore, he noted that such a practice would violate due process by depriving individuals of their liberty without notice or opportunity to defend themselves against any new charges brought up after they were already convicted and sentenced. Justice Field also pointed out that if Congress could pass laws allowing post-conviction increases in punishment then there would be nothing preventing them from increasing punishments retroactively - something which is expressly forbidden by Article I Section 9 Clause 3 of the Constitution (the Ex Post Facto Clause). In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that Congress did not have authority under either law or justice to enact statutes providing for increased punishments following conviction and thus urged reversal of the judgment below on this basis alone.