In the 1962 case of Symons v. California, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a search and seizure conducted without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual. The appellant, Symons, had been convicted for possession of obscene materials based on evidence obtained during a police search of his home that was carried out without obtaining a warrant first. He argued that this constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court upheld Symon's conviction by affirming lower court rulings which held that there were exigent circumstances justifying immediate action by law enforcement officers due to fear that evidence might be destroyed or removed if they waited for a warrant before conducting their search.

The dissenting opinion in the Symons v. California case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a search and seizure without a warrant was inconsistent with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissent contended that there were no exigent circumstances justifying an exception to the requirement for a warrant, as police had ample opportunity to secure one given their prior knowledge of potential illegal activity at Symon's residence. They further asserted that allowing such exceptions would undermine citizens' constitutional rights and could potentially lead to abuses of power by law enforcement officials. The dissent also disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes ‘reasonable’ suspicion necessary for conducting a search without warrant, arguing it set too low a bar which might encourage arbitrary intrusions on personal privacy.