In Marr v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving an individual convicted of violating the National Prohibition Act by possessing and selling intoxicating liquor. The defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when officers searched his home without a warrant and seized alcohol. He contended that this evidence should not have been admissible in court due to its illegal procurement. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that while it was true officers did not possess a search warrant at the time of their initial visit, they had seen enough from plain view during their first visit (which was consensual) to justify obtaining one for their second visit where they found and seized illicit alcohol. Therefore, no Fourth Amendment violation occurred as there was probable cause for issuing a search warrant based on what law enforcement saw during their initial encounter.

The dissenting opinion in Marr v. United States argued that the majority had erred in its interpretation of the Volstead Act, which was enacted to provide for enforcement of Prohibition. The dissent contended that the act did not intend to criminalize possession of alcohol for personal use but rather aimed at preventing manufacture and sale. It further asserted that interpreting it otherwise would infringe upon individual liberties protected by constitutional rights, particularly when there is no clear harm or threat posed to public safety or welfare. Moreover, it pointed out inconsistencies in applying penalties under this law if mere possession were considered a crime - an issue left unaddressed by the majority ruling.