United States v. Frerichs 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 arose when the defendant, Frerichs, was arrested for the possession of counterfeit money. The arresting officers had conducted a search of Frerichs' home without a warrant, which was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Frerichs argued that the evidence obtained through the illegal search should be excluded from trial, as it was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding 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, was not applicable in this case because the officers had acted in good faith and had not acted with any malicious intent. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not to punish innocent officers. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule was not applicable in this case because the officers had acted in good faith and had not acted with any malicious intent.

In United States v. Frerichs, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant who had been convicted of violating federal law could be held liable for costs associated with his trial and imprisonment. The majority opinion found that he could not, as such costs were not explicitly mentioned in the statute under which he was charged. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had intended to include these types of expenses when it passed the relevant legislation. He argued that if Congress did not intend to cover such costs then they would have specifically excluded them from their language; since they did not do so, it should be assumed that all necessary expenses related to enforcing criminal laws were included within its scope. Furthermore, Field noted that allowing defendants like Frerichs to avoid paying these fees would place an undue burden on taxpayers and thus undermine public confidence in government institutions responsible for upholding justice and protecting citizens' rights.