United States v. Hess was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 the defendant, John Hess, who was charged with the illegal sale of liquor. The evidence against Hess was obtained through a search of his home, which was conducted without a warrant. Hess argued that the evidence should be excluded because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the evidence was admissible and that Hess 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 search was conducted in good faith and without any knowledge that it was illegal. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions. The Court's decision in United States v. Hess established that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure can be used to convict a defendant, provided that the search was conducted in good faith and without knowledge that it was illegal. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Hess, arguing that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider relevant facts of the case. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it was entered into with full knowledge or not. In this particular case, he noted that there was no evidence presented by either party as to what exactly happened when they made their agreement and thus could not conclude definitively if one side had taken advantage of another's ignorance or lack thereof. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if one party did have superior knowledge at the time of entering into an agreement, such information does not necessarily invalidate a contract; rather it is up to each individual contracting party to determine for themselves how much risk they are willing take on before signing any document. Ultimately he concluded by stating his belief that contracts should be upheld unless proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt and thus found himself unable to agree with his colleagues' decision in this matter