In the 1983 case of Segura et al. v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that evidence seized from a location where police had previously conducted an illegal warrantless search could be admitted in court if it was later obtained legally through a valid search warrant independent of the initial entry. The defendants, Alberto Segura and Ricardo Colon were suspected drug traffickers whose apartment was illegally searched by law enforcement officers without a warrant. During this initial entry, no items were seized but officers observed contraband in plain view which they used to obtain a legal search warrant for further investigation. When executing this subsequent lawful search, authorities discovered and confiscated drugs and other incriminating materials which were then used as evidence against them at trial leading to their conviction on federal narcotics charges.

In the dissenting opinion for Segura et al. v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to allow evidence obtained from a warrantless entry into an apartment was in violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that this ruling could potentially encourage law enforcement officers to make illegal entries without warrants, knowing they can later obtain them retroactively to justify their actions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that excluding such evidence would not deter police misconduct but instead punish society by letting guilty individuals go free. Instead, he believed it is essential to uphold constitutional protections even when they may seem inconvenient or costly in individual cases because these principles are fundamental to maintaining a just and democratic society.