In the case of Tiller v. California, 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of California. The appellant, a Los Angeles police officer named Robert L. Tiller was convicted for accepting bribes from gamblers and bookmakers while on duty to ignore their illegal activities. He appealed his conviction arguing that evidence used against him had been obtained through an unlawful search and seizure violating his Fourth Amendment rights as it was taken without a warrant or consent during an internal affairs investigation by fellow officers. The court held that there were no constitutional issues involved since the search did not involve any private property but rather items related to employment which he carried out in public service capacity - such as logbooks detailing payoffs received from criminals - hence they fell under "plain view" doctrine exception to warrant requirement. Furthermore, it stated that even if there had been violation of Fourth Amendment rights (which wasn't established), exclusionary rule wouldn't apply because this was state prosecution where federal rules didn’t necessarily govern.

In the dissenting opinion for Tiller v. California, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a search and seizure without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens. The dissenters believed that there were no exigent circumstances in this case which would justify bypassing obtaining a proper search warrant before conducting an investigation on private property. They contended that allowing such practices could potentially lead to abuse by law enforcement officials who might exploit these exceptions as loopholes to avoid due process requirements under the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "reasonable" grounds for suspicion, arguing instead for stricter standards in order not only protect individual liberties but also maintain public trust in law enforcement institutions.