United States v. Ambrose was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Ambrose, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that the conviction could not stand. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, which meant that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and could not be used to convict the defendant. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that the conviction could not stand. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, which meant that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and could not be used to convict the defendant.

In United States v. Ambrose, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of manslaughter for killing another person in self-defense while intoxicated. The majority opinion held that intoxication is not an excuse for criminal behavior and thus the defendant should be found guilty of manslaughter. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would be unjust to punish someone who acted out of necessity due to their own drunkenness when they otherwise would have been justified in defending themselves against attack. He argued that if a sober person can use force to protect themselves or others from harm then so too should an intoxicated individual who acts under similar circumstances; punishing them as though they had committed murder or manslaughter would violate basic principles of justice and fairness.