In Rugendorf v. United States (1963), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The defendant, Samuel Rugendorf, was convicted of receiving stolen property after police found fur coats in his home during a search authorized by a warrant based on an affidavit that contained information from an illegal wiretap. Rugendorf argued that this evidence should have been excluded because it was obtained through violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction with a 5-4 decision, ruling that while the use of illegally obtained information to secure a search warrant does violate Fourth Amendment protections, not all such violations require exclusion of resulting evidence. In this case, they determined there had been sufficient independent sources for probable cause beyond the illegal wiretap - namely physical surveillance and interviews with informants - which could have justified issuing the warrant even without considering any tainted information. This decision is significant as it clarified circumstances under which evidence derived from unconstitutional actions might still be admissible in court; however, critics argue it potentially undermines deterrents against law enforcement misconduct.

In the dissenting opinion for Rugendorf v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the search of Rugendorf's home was unconstitutional and violated his Fourth Amendment rights. He contended that there was no probable cause to believe stolen furs would be found in Rugendorf's house, as the only evidence presented by police were statements from an informant who had previously been unreliable. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for allowing a warrantless search based on mere suspicion rather than concrete evidence or reasonable grounds. According to him, this ruling could potentially open doors for law enforcement agencies to conduct searches without warrants under vague suspicions which is against constitutional principles protecting citizens' privacy rights.