In the 1967 case of Sabbath v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to Fourth Amendment rights and search warrants. The defendant, Albert Sabbath, was convicted for receiving stolen goods after police entered his apartment without a warrant due to seeing him accept a suspicious package from a known thief. The officers knocked on his door but did not announce their presence or purpose before entering when he opened it slightly. In court, Sabbath argued that this constituted an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court agreed with Sabbath in a 5-4 decision stating that even if there is probable cause for arrest or seizure of evidence, law enforcement must still adhere to "knock-and-announce" procedures unless there are exigent circumstances justifying immediate entry without announcement (such as danger to officers). This rule applies regardless of whether they have obtained a warrant beforehand or not. This ruling reinforced protections provided by the Fourth Amendment and clarified standards regarding unannounced entries into private residences by law enforcement officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Sabbath v. United States, Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "breaking" in 18 U.S.C. § 2115 as requiring physical force or damage to a building's structure. He argued that this narrow definition was inconsistent with common law and previous court decisions which defined breaking more broadly to include any act infringing upon another person’s property rights, such as opening an unlocked door or window without permission. Furthermore, he contended that Congress intended a broad meaning when it used the term “breaks” in drafting the statute since it did not specify otherwise nor provide any indication of wanting to depart from its traditional understanding at common law. Therefore, according to Justice White, even if no physical force was applied by Sabbath when entering through an open but closed door into a post office building after hours without authority and with felonious intent - his actions still constituted burglary under federal law.