In the case of Raul Lopez, Warden v. Marvin Vernis Smith in 2014, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a California state court's decision - that evidence obtained from a police officer's error during a traffic stop was admissible - contradicted or unreasonably applied federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court denied certiorari (refused to review) for this case without comment or dissenting opinion. This means they did not provide any legal reasoning for their decision and it does not set any precedent for future cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Raul Lopez, Warden v. Marvin Vernis Smith, the justice argued that there was no clear evidence to suggest that Smith's counsel had been ineffective during his trial. The justice pointed out that while it may seem like a better strategy in hindsight to have presented certain mitigating factors during sentencing, at the time of trial it could have also opened up opportunities for damaging rebuttal evidence from prosecution. Therefore, they believed this strategic decision by defense counsel did not necessarily constitute ineffectiveness. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s view on prejudice caused due to alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and stated that even if all additional mitigating evidences were presented before jury; given aggravating circumstances involved in crime committed by defendant including prior convictions and severity of current offense (murder), outcome would likely remain same i.e., death sentence.