In Scher v. United States (1938), the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant could not use the statute of limitations as a defense if they had fled from justice, even if their flight was unrelated to the charges against them. The case involved Samuel Scher, who was indicted for mail fraud in 1924 but fled before he could be arrested. He returned to New York in 1936 and was subsequently arrested and convicted on these charges. On appeal, Scher argued that his conviction should be overturned because more than five years had passed since his indictment - exceeding the statute of limitations for mail fraud cases under federal law at that time. However, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court itself which upheld his conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Scher v. United States, Justice Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that allowing such evidence would encourage law enforcement officials to engage in illegal surveillance activities, undermining citizens' privacy rights. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Olmstead v. United States (1928), arguing it did not establish an absolute rule permitting wiretap-obtained evidence but rather left room for future reconsideration as technology evolved and societal norms changed regarding privacy expectations.