In the case of Lanza v. New York, 1961, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy. The defendant, Anthony Lanza, was charged with operating an illegal still and convicted in federal court. Subsequently, he was prosecuted and convicted for the same offense under state law in New York. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment right against being placed in "double jeopardy" or tried twice for the same crime. The Supreme Court upheld Lanza's second conviction stating that both federal and state governments are separate sovereign entities each having its own laws which can be enforced independently without violating constitutional rights against double jeopardy. This principle is known as "dual sovereignty doctrine". Therefore, according to this ruling a person could be tried separately by both state and federal courts for essentially identical crimes without infringing upon their Fifth Amendment protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Lanza v. New York, Justice Black argued that the Fourth Amendment should apply to state and local governments as well as federal ones. He believed that this case was a clear violation of unreasonable search and seizure protections provided by the Constitution. The majority's decision upheld a law allowing warrantless searches of licensed premises selling alcohol, but Justice Black disagreed with their interpretation of these premises being "closely regulated." He also took issue with how they defined "reasonableness," arguing it should not be based on whether or not an individual has chosen to engage in certain activities (like selling alcohol), but rather if there is probable cause for suspicion of illegal activity before conducting a search. In his view, any other interpretation would allow states too much power over individuals' privacy rights.