In the case of Linkletter v. Walker, 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its decision in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), which required state courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, did not apply retroactively to convictions that had become final before Mapp was decided. The petitioner, Paul Linkletter, sought relief from his conviction on grounds that it was based on evidence seized during an unlawful search - a right he claimed under the ruling made in Mapp v. Ohio three years after his conviction became final. However, the court held by a 7-2 vote that each constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions and merits consideration for prospective or retrospective application accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion for Linkletter v. Walker, Justice Harlan argued that the Court's decision to not apply Mapp v. Ohio retroactively was inconsistent with previous decisions and undermined the principle of stare decisis (respect for precedent). He contended that once a new rule has been established by the Supreme Court, it should be applied to all cases still open on direct review regardless of when they were initiated. This would ensure fairness and consistency in judicial proceedings while also maintaining respect for legal precedents set by higher courts. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how this ruling could lead to arbitrary application of constitutional rights depending on when a case is heard or decided upon.