In the case of Piccirillo v. New York, 1970, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a decision by lower courts to convict and sentence Anthony Piccirillo for possession of gambling records. The defendant had appealed on grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officers searched his car without a warrant after pulling him over for erratic driving. However, the court ruled that there was probable cause for search due to suspicious circumstances surrounding the stop - including an attempt by Piccirillo to discard evidence (gambling slips). Therefore, it concluded that no constitutional violation occurred in this instance as law enforcement acted within their purview under exigent circumstances exception which allows searches without warrants if immediate action is required.

In the dissenting opinion for Piccirillo v. New York, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search and seizure violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. The dissenting justices believed that law enforcement officers had not established probable cause before conducting their search of Piccirillo’s property, which they saw as a clear violation of his constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "exigent circumstances," arguing that there were no immediate threats or dangers present at the time of this incident to justify bypassing normal warrant procedures. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent for future cases by potentially encouraging unlawful police conduct.