In the case of Stockley et al. v. United States in 1922, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a search warrant could be issued based on an affidavit that did not establish probable cause for belief in guilt but only suspicion or strong reason to suspect it. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate Prohibition laws and appealed their conviction arguing that evidence used against them had been obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The court held that while affidavits must provide sufficient facts to justify a conclusion of probable cause rather than mere suspicion, they need not contain all information within the knowledge of the affiant which might affect its weight as evidence if presented at trial. In this case, although some details were omitted from the affidavit supporting issuance of the search warrant, there was enough information provided by other sources such as previous convictions and known associations with criminals to support a finding of probable cause.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stockley et al. v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was inconsistent with Fourth Amendment protections against such practices. The dissent contended that allowing illegally seized evidence to be used in court would undermine citizens' constitutional rights and encourage law enforcement misconduct. It emphasized that the exclusionary rule, which bars admission of unlawfully obtained evidence, is essential for deterring police from violating individuals' privacy rights and ensuring fair trials. The dissent also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if officers are not held accountable for illegal searches or seizures, arguing it could lead to erosion of civil liberties over time.