In Nathanson v. United States (1933), the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant for tax evasion could not be issued based solely on an affidavit stating the belief of a customs agent that goods were being stored illegally, without any factual foundation to support this belief. The case involved Samuel Nathanson who was charged with smuggling and conspiracy to smuggle merchandise into the U.S., which led to his premises being searched under warrants issued on such affidavits. In its decision, the court emphasized that mere affirmance of suspicion or belief is not enough for issuance of a search warrant; there must be supporting facts or circumstances presented to the judge issuing it. This ruling reinforced Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring more than just an officer's good faith assertion in order to justify intrusion into one’s privacy.

In the dissenting opinion for Nathanson v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding search warrants. He contended that it is not necessary for an affidavit to contain specific facts supporting an officer's belief of probable cause; rather, it should be enough if the affidavit simply states that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. According to Justice Stone, requiring more detailed information would place an undue burden on law enforcement and could potentially hinder their ability to effectively carry out investigations and enforce laws. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling might affect future cases by setting a precedent which could limit police powers in unreasonable ways.