In the case of Massachusetts v. Upton, 1983, the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that had suppressed evidence obtained in a warrantless search. The police had received an anonymous tip about stolen goods at Stanley Upton's residence and conducted a search without obtaining a warrant due to their belief that there was imminent danger of removal or destruction of evidence (exigent circumstances). The state court ruled this as unconstitutional under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures because they believed the information from an anonymous tip wasn't enough to justify immediate action without securing a warrant first. However, on appeal, the US Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. They argued that given all facts available to officers at time - including details provided by informant which were corroborated independently - it was reasonable for them to believe exigent circumstances existed justifying immediate action.

In the dissenting opinion for Massachusetts v. Upton, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search based on exigent circumstances was incorrect. He contended that there were no immediate threats or dangers present at the time of the search and thus, it violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on an “all-or-nothing” approach in determining whether probable cause existed for a warrantless search. Instead, he suggested that each piece of information should be evaluated individually to determine its reliability before being used as grounds for such action. This would ensure more accurate assessments and better protection of individual rights under law enforcement scrutiny.