In Shiver v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted of selling liquor to Native Americans in Indian Territory without a license. The defendant argued that he had not violated any laws because the sale took place outside of Indian Territory and thus did not fall under federal jurisdiction. However, the court disagreed with this argument, stating that it was irrelevant where the sale occurred as long as it resulted in alcohol being introduced into Indian Territory illegally. The court upheld his conviction and clarified that anyone who sells liquor to Native Americans knowing or having reason to believe they will take it into their territory is guilty under federal law regardless of where the transaction takes place.

In the dissenting opinion for Shiver v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that any evidence obtained in such a manner should be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and therefore inadmissible in court. They contended that allowing this type of evidence not only undermines individual privacy rights but also encourages law enforcement officers to engage in unconstitutional practices with impunity. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power by government officials if such actions were left unchecked by courts.