In the United States v. Johnson case of 1981, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search and seizure conducted by law enforcement officers in "open fields" did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case involved two defendants who were growing marijuana on secluded property they owned but did not live on or use for any other purpose. Law enforcement officials entered this land without a warrant, discovered the marijuana plants, and arrested them based on this evidence. The defendants argued that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated because they had taken steps to maintain privacy on their property (such as posting 'No Trespassing' signs). However, the court disagreed with this argument stating that open fields do not provide setting for intimate activities protected by constitutional guarantee against government intrusion.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Johnson, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to allow evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this ruling undermined the exclusionary rule, which is designed to deter unlawful police conduct by excluding illegally obtained evidence from trial. Brennan believed that allowing such evidence would only encourage law enforcement officers to disregard individuals' constitutional rights during investigations. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on “good faith” exceptions as it could be easily manipulated and misused by authorities who might claim ignorance of legal requirements or changes in law while violating citizens’ rights intentionally or negligibly. The justice also expressed concern about how this decision could erode public trust in judicial processes if courts are seen as condoning unconstitutional actions by police.