In the case of Missouri v. Blair in 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving extradition procedures between states. The defendant, George Blair Jr., was wanted in Missouri for parole violation but had been living in California at the time he was discovered by authorities. Despite an extradition request from Missouri's governor to his Californian counterpart, Blair refused to consent to be returned and filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that he wasn't present in Missouri when his alleged crime occurred - thus making him ineligible for extradition under federal law which requires that fugitives must have fled from the state seeking their return after committing a crime there. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and upheld lower court rulings denying Blair's petition. It held that while physical presence is indeed required under federal law for initial jurisdiction over an offense, it doesn't apply once jurisdiction has been established as it had been when Blair committed his original crimes before being paroled and fleeing to another state thereafter.

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri v. Blair, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search of an individual's home based on exigent circumstances was incorrect and violated Fourth Amendment rights. The dissent emphasized that there should be a higher standard for allowing such searches without warrants, particularly in cases where police have created the exigency by their own actions. It also pointed out inconsistencies in how courts determine what constitutes an 'exigent circumstance', leading to potential misuse of this exception to warrant requirements. Furthermore, it criticized the majority’s reliance on speculation about what might happen if officers were required to obtain a warrant before entering homes under these circumstances rather than concrete evidence or precedent supporting their position.