In the 1908 United States v. Herr case, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving customs duties. The defendant, Mr. Herr, had imported merchandise from Germany to New York and declared it as "dolls' eyes," which were duty-free under U.S law at that time. However, upon inspection by customs officials, they found that the shipment contained not only dolls' eyes but also other items such as toys and Christmas tree ornaments which were subject to import duties. The government argued that since these undeclared goods made up more than half of the total value of the shipment (in violation of section 2804 of Revised Statutes), all goods in this consignment should be subjected to forfeiture according to section 2864. Mr.Herr countered this argument stating he was unaware about any misdeclaration or fraudulence involved with his cargo's content declaration. However,the court held against him ruling out ignorance as an excuse for violating custom laws.The court stated that if one part is fraudulent then entire lot can be considered so unless proven otherwise.This judgement set a precedent for future cases where ignorance could no longer serve as an acceptable defense in matters concerning custom violations.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Herr case argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an unlawful search and seizure. The dissenting justices believed that evidence obtained through a warrantless search of Herr's property should not have been admissible in court, as it was procured in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. They contended that allowing such evidence would set a dangerous precedent for future cases, undermining citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority view on what constitutes "exigent circumstances" justifying warrantless searches, arguing that there was no immediate danger or risk of evidence destruction present at the time of this particular search.