In Kremen et al. v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners who had their property seized by federal agents without a warrant during an investigation into illegal gambling operations on their land in Nevada. The government argued that the seizure was justified under "plain view" doctrine because they believed the buildings were being used for illegal activities and thus constituted contraband themselves. However, the court disagreed stating that entire structures could not be considered contraband just because they housed illicit activity; only specific items directly involved in criminal conduct could fall under this category (like gambling equipment). Therefore, it held that seizing whole buildings exceeded what was permissible under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures without a proper warrant specifying exactly what should be taken.

In the dissenting opinion for Kremen et al. v. United States, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law and property rights. He contended that the government had not seized any tangible property but merely made use of information obtained during an investigation, which did not constitute a violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he maintained that even if there were some form of seizure involved in this case, it would be justified under wartime conditions as part of national security measures to protect against potential threats to public safety or order. Thus, according to Justice Frankfurter's view, no compensation should be owed by the government for its actions in this case.