In Minnesota v. Blasius (1933), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case involving the violation of Prohibition laws. The defendant, Blasius, was convicted in state court for possessing liquor illegally and appealed his conviction on grounds that evidence used against him had been obtained through an unlawful search and seizure by federal prohibition agents who then turned it over to state authorities. He argued this violated his Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Blasius stating that even if there were violations of constitutional rights during evidence collection by federal officers, such actions did not prevent states from using said evidence in their courts as long as they themselves didn't participate in or encourage those violations. This decision reflected a period when exclusionary rules regarding unlawfully seized evidence were less rigorously applied than today.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Minnesota v. Blasius argued that the state had not provided sufficient evidence to justify its claim against Blasius. The justice believed that the state's argument was based on speculation and conjecture, rather than concrete proof. They contended that without clear evidence showing a violation of law by Blasius, it would be unjust to uphold his conviction solely on suspicion or assumption. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential violations of due process rights if convictions were allowed to stand without solid evidentiary support. This view held that upholding such a conviction could set a dangerous precedent for future cases where defendants might be convicted based on weak or circumstantial evidence.