In the 1904 case Rodriguez v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a search warrant could not be issued based on an affidavit stating only general suspicion or belief without any specific facts to support it. The case involved a man named Rodriguez who was convicted of smuggling goods into Texas from Mexico after his home was searched under such a warrant and incriminating evidence was found. He appealed his conviction all the way up to the Supreme Court, arguing that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court agreed with him, ruling unanimously in favor of Rodriguez and overturning his conviction. In their decision, they emphasized that for a search warrant to be validly issued there must be probable cause supported by oath or affirmation - mere suspicion is not enough.

The dissenting opinion in Rodriguez v. United States, 1904, argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an infringement on individual rights. The dissenters believed that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should extend to all individuals within U.S territory, regardless of their citizenship status. They contended that this interpretation is consistent with both historical precedent and constitutional principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that immigration officials have broad discretionary powers to conduct warrantless searches without probable cause or suspicion of wrongdoing. They warned such a ruling could lead to abuses of power by government authorities at the expense of personal liberties.