In the case of Talbert v. United States (1894), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving maritime law and jurisdiction. The defendant, Mr. Talbert, was convicted for manslaughter committed on an American vessel while it was in a harbor of Peru. He appealed his conviction arguing that the U.S court did not have jurisdiction over crimes committed within territorial waters of another nation even if they were perpetrated aboard an American ship. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that under international law, a country has exclusive jurisdiction over its vessels regardless of where they are located unless there is an agreement to contrary with the host nation or port state. Therefore, despite being docked in Peruvian waters at time of crime's commission, since no such agreement existed between Peru and US relinquishing America’s judicial control over its ships when in Peruvian harbors; US courts had rightful authority to try and convict Mr.Talbert for his actions onboard their national vessel.

In the dissenting opinion for Talbert v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search was fundamentally flawed and set a dangerous precedent. The justice contended that by allowing such evidence to be used in court, it effectively condoned unlawful actions by law enforcement officials. This not only violated individuals' Fourth Amendment rights but also undermined public trust in law enforcement agencies and judicial processes. Furthermore, this ruling could potentially incentivize police misconduct as they may feel emboldened to engage in illegal searches with impunity knowing any incriminating evidence found would still be admissible in court despite its illicit origins.