In the 1892 case of Roget v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership in California that dated back to Mexican rule before the territory became part of the U.S. The plaintiff, Roget, claimed he had inherited a tract of land from his father who received it as a grant from Mexico's governor in 1846. However, when California became part of America after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, all previous land grants were subject to confirmation by American courts. In this case, there was no official record or document proving that such a grant existed and thus could not be confirmed under American law. The court held that oral testimony alone was insufficient proof for confirming these types of claims due to potential issues with reliability and authenticity. It also noted inconsistencies between different testimonies provided by witnesses supporting Roget’s claim which further undermined its credibility. Therefore, despite acknowledging some evidence suggesting possible existence of such grant during Mexican rule (like possession & use), without any documentary evidence or reliable witness accounts affirming its issuance by competent authority at relevant time period - it couldn't be legally recognized under US laws governing property rights acquired prior to treaty.

In the dissenting opinion for Roget v. United States, it was argued that the court erred in its decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search and seizure. The dissenting justices believed that this violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant. They contended that any evidence obtained in such a manner should be deemed inadmissible in court as "fruit of the poisonous tree." Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of what constitutes 'reasonable' under Fourth Amendment standards. In their view, even if law enforcement officers had good intentions or acted out of necessity due to exigent circumstances, it did not justify bypassing constitutional protections afforded to individuals against unwarranted intrusions into their privacy by state actors.