In the case of Tabb v. California in 1963, the U.S Supreme Court upheld a decision by the California District Court of Appeal that convicted Robert Lee Tabb for first-degree murder and robbery. The court rejected Tabb's claim that his confession was coerced and violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. He argued that he had been denied counsel during police interrogation, but evidence showed he had not requested an attorney nor did officers deny him access to one. Furthermore, there were no signs of physical or psychological coercion used to obtain his confession; it was given voluntarily after being informed about his constitutional rights including remaining silent if desired so as not to incriminate himself further. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed Tabb’s conviction on both counts.

In the dissenting opinion for Tabb v. California, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that there were no exigent circumstances justifying such an intrusion without a warrant, as required by constitutional law. They contended that police had ample opportunity to obtain a search warrant given their prior knowledge about potential illegal activities at Tabb’s residence but chose not to do so. Therefore, they viewed this as an unnecessary bypass of due process protections against unreasonable searches and seizures provided by the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with applying Carroll doctrine (which allows vehicle searches based on probable cause) in this case because unlike vehicles which can be quickly moved out of local jurisdiction making obtaining warrants impractical sometimes; houses are immobile hence always allowing time for securing warrants before conducting any searches or seizures.