Snow v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a man named Snow who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Snow, finding that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was not admissible in court. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, meaning that any evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was not admissible in court. The Court's ruling in Snow v. United States established the precedent that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court. This ruling has been used in numerous cases since then to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Snow v. United States, arguing that the Court should have found for the defendant and reversed its decision. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow a person to be convicted of an offense without being present at their trial or having any knowledge of it taking place. Furthermore, he contended that such a law was unconstitutional because it violated due process rights guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions. Additionally, Justice Field argued that allowing someone to be convicted without being present at their trial could lead to arbitrary convictions based on hearsay evidence rather than actual proof beyond reasonable doubt as required by criminal procedure laws. Finally, he concluded his dissent with the statement “The power assumed by Congress is not only unauthorized but dangerous” indicating his belief that this case set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues related to due process rights and constitutional protections against arbitrary convictions