In the case of Miller v. United States in 1934, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving prohibition laws and their enforcement. The petitioner, Fred E. Miller, was convicted for maintaining a common nuisance by keeping liquor for sale at his home during Prohibition. He argued that evidence used against him had been obtained through an illegal search and seizure because officers did not have a warrant when they entered his property after he refused them entry; thus violating his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the court held that since federal officers were executing judgments under revenue laws rather than conducting searches to secure evidence of crime, no unreasonable search or seizure occurred as per Fourth Amendment protections. Therefore, it upheld Miller's conviction stating that there was no constitutional violation involved in obtaining the incriminating evidence.

In the dissenting opinion for Miller v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Miller's conviction due to a procedural error during his trial. He argued that while there was indeed an error in instructing the jury about how they should consider evidence of good character, this mistake did not necessarily influence their final verdict and thus does not warrant a retrial. Furthermore, he pointed out that even if such an instruction could have potentially affected the outcome of some cases, it would be impossible to determine whether or not it had any impact on this particular case without speculating about what went through each juror’s mind during deliberations – something which is inherently unknowable and therefore irrelevant when deciding whether or not a new trial should be granted. Finally, he expressed concern that by setting such a precedent where minor errors can lead to retrials regardless of their actual effect on verdicts might encourage unnecessary appeals and cause undue delays in justice being served.