In Michigan v. Clifford, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1983 that a warrant is required for an administrative search of a fire-damaged home when the homeowner is not present and has not given consent to the search. The case arose after a suspicious early morning house fire in which investigators returned later in the day without obtaining permission or a warrant to conduct further investigation into possible arson. The court held that while immediate investigations following fires may fall under "exigent circumstances" exceptions to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches, this did not apply once those exigent circumstances had passed and homeowners were absent from their property without having provided consent for such searches.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan v. Clifford, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was too restrictive and failed to consider the practical realities of fire investigations. He contended that a warrant should not be required in all cases where officials return to a burned structure after daylight hours or when they reenter without consent from homeowners. Instead, he suggested that such decisions should depend on whether there is an ongoing emergency or if investigators have reasonable cause to believe evidence may be destroyed or removed. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view about what constitutes a “reasonable” search under Fourth Amendment standards in these circumstances; instead of focusing solely on time and consent factors, Stevens believed courts should also consider other relevant factors like urgency and potential danger involved in fire investigations.