United States v. Corson 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 at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The case involved a defendant, Corson, who was charged with the illegal possession of firearms. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home that was conducted without a warrant. The defendant argued that the evidence should be excluded because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, does not apply when the evidence is obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule is meant to deter police misconduct, and that the misconduct in this case was not committed by the police. The Court also held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the search was conducted without a warrant. The Court reasoned that the search was reasonable under the circumstances and that the defendant had no expectation of privacy in the items seized. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the evidence is obtained through an illegal search and seizure, and that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the search was reasonable under the circumstances.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Corson, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for the forfeiture of land due to non-payment of taxes. He argued that such an act was unconstitutional and violated both the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against taking private property without just compensation and Article I, Section 8's grant of power over taxation solely to Congress. Furthermore, he argued that if this type of legislation were allowed then it could be used by future legislatures as a means to take away any citizen’s rights or property without providing them with proper compensation. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while he did not doubt Congress' good intentions when passing this law, it should still be declared void because its enactment exceeded their constitutional powers granted under Article I, Section 8.