In Rawlings v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kentucky, upholding the conviction of William Rawlings for drug possession. The case revolved around whether or not a warrantless search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Police had arrested Roxanne Davis on suspicion of drug dealing; she then revealed that drugs found in her purse belonged to Rawlings who was also present at the scene during her arrest. He admitted ownership after being read his Miranda rights but later sought to suppress this admission as evidence claiming it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure since police did not have a warrant when they searched Davis's purse where they found his drugs. The court held that while individuals generally have an expectation of privacy regarding their personal belongings, such protection does not extend to items placed into someone else’s property without their knowledge or consent - which is what happened with Rawling's drugs in Davis' purse.

In the dissenting opinion for Rawlings v. Kentucky, Justice Marshall argued that the majority had misapplied both ownership and control tests in determining whether Rawlings had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his friend's purse where drugs were found. He contended that under previous precedents, an individual could have a reasonable expectation of privacy even if they did not own or have exclusive control over the area searched. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on Rawlings' lack of immediate possession as evidence against his claim to Fourth Amendment protection. According to him, this approach was inconsistent with past rulings which held that individuals do not lose their constitutional rights simply because they are not physically holding their property at every moment. Lastly, he disagreed with how quickly the majority dismissed Rawling's subjective expectations of privacy based on his actions after police arrived; arguing it should be considered more seriously given its importance in defining Fourth Amendment protections.