In the 1998 case of Amanda Mitchell v. United States, Amanda Mitchell appealed her conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The main issue in this appeal was whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence obtained from a warrantless search of her purse during an arrest on unrelated charges. Mitchell argued that the police had no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe she was involved in drug trafficking at the time they searched her purse, thus violating her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court ruled against Mitchell, upholding both her conviction and sentence. The Court held that under existing precedent, law enforcement officers are allowed to conduct a full search incident to lawful arrest without any additional justification other than ensuring officer safety and preventing destruction or concealment of evidence related directly or indirectly with crime for which suspect is arrested.

In the dissenting opinion for Amanda Mitchell v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mitchell's conviction was flawed due to a lack of evidence proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The justice contended that there were significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient physical evidence linking Mitchell directly to the crime scene or victim. Furthermore, they criticized law enforcement’s handling of the case, suggesting it may have compromised key pieces of evidence and potentially influenced witnesses' accounts. They also expressed concern over potential bias within jury selection process which could have unfairly swayed verdict against defendant. Lastly, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of relevant laws and precedents used in reaching their conclusion; arguing instead for more stringent application ensuring defendants’ rights are fully protected during trial proceedings.