In the 1963 case Stoner v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a hotel guest is entitled to constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The case arose when police officers in Los Angeles searched a hotel room rented by Abel Stoner without obtaining a search warrant or his consent, finding evidence of forgery which was later used to convict him at trial. The court held that even though he was not present during the search, it still violated his rights as they did not have permission from either Mr. Stoner or judicial authority via a warrant for their actions; therefore, any evidence obtained through this illegal search could not be used in court due to what's known as "the exclusionary rule". This decision reinforced individuals' privacy rights and set an important precedent regarding law enforcement procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Stoner v. California, Justice Clark argued that the majority's decision to exclude evidence obtained without a warrant from a hotel room was overly restrictive and not in line with previous court rulings. He pointed out that hotels are public places where guests have less expectation of privacy than they would in their own homes. Furthermore, he noted that the defendant had left his room and did not object when hotel staff allowed police officers to enter it. Therefore, he believed there was no violation of Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because consent was given by someone who had lawful control over the premises at the time - namely, the hotel management.