The U.S. Supreme Court case Maryland v. Jerome Edward Buie, 1989, revolved around the issue of whether or not police officers were allowed to conduct a protective sweep in someone's home without a warrant following an arrest. The court ruled in favor of Maryland, establishing that law enforcement could perform a quick and limited search of premises incident to an arrest if they believed there might be danger present - this is known as "a protective sweep." In this particular case, Jerome Edward Buie was arrested at his home for armed robbery; during the arrest process, one officer conducted a brief scan of the basement where he found incriminating evidence against Buie which was later used at trial. The Supreme Court held that such searches are permissible under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures because they are meant to protect arresting officers rather than find additional evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland v. Buie, Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, argued that a protective sweep should not be justified simply because an arrest is made inside a home. They contended that such sweeps are only justifiable if there's reasonable belief of immediate danger to police officers or others present. The majority’s decision allowing cursory visual inspections without this standard was seen as undermining Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenters also criticized the majority for creating an exception to the warrant requirement based on speculation about potential dangers rather than concrete evidence of threat. They believed this could lead to arbitrary and invasive searches with little oversight or control.