In the case of New York v. Harris, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a confession made at a police station by an individual who was arrested unlawfully in his home without an arrest warrant could be used as evidence against him in court. The defendant, Harris, had been taken into custody from his home without a warrant and later confessed to murder while at the police station. He argued that this confession should not be admissible because it was obtained through an illegal arrest under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument on grounds that he was given Miranda warnings before confessing and there were no coercive actions involved during questioning which would have violated Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

In the dissenting opinion for New York v. Harris, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that police officers violated Harris' rights when they entered his home without a warrant or consent to arrest him. According to Marshall, this unlawful entry tainted any subsequent statements made by Harris at the police station because they were directly linked to the illegal arrest. The exclusionary rule should therefore apply, which would bar these statements from being used as evidence in court proceedings. In essence, he believed that allowing such evidence essentially rewarded law enforcement for their misconduct and set a dangerous precedent of disregarding constitutional safeguards.