Page v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Page, who was charged with the possession of counterfeit money. The evidence used to convict Page was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that Page could not be convicted on the basis of it. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of this amendment. The Court further held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, meaning that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and could not be used to convict Page. The Court's decision in Page v. United States established the precedent that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and cannot be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case, arguing that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear it. He argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive power over cases arising from admiralty and maritime matters. As such, he believed that any decision by a court other than one established by Congress would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if the Court did have jurisdiction to hear this case, its ruling was incorrect because there was insufficient evidence presented for it to make a determination on whether or not Page's actions constituted piracy as defined by international law. In conclusion, Justice Field stated his belief that only Congress could decide whether or not an act is considered piracy and thus should be responsible for determining what punishment should follow such acts.