United States v. Jordan 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 inadmissible and that the defendant could not be convicted. The case involved a defendant, Jordan, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence against him was obtained through a search and seizure that was conducted without a warrant. The Court held that the search and seizure was illegal and that the evidence obtained was inadmissible. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained in this case was obtained in violation of that amendment. The Court also held that the defendant could not be convicted based on the illegally obtained evidence. The Court reasoned that allowing the conviction would be a violation of the defendant's right to due process of law. The Court concluded that the evidence was inadmissible and that the defendant could not be convicted.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Jordan, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that Congress had not intended for a tax collector to be held personally liable for any taxes he collected from individuals or corporations if they failed to pay them on time. The government should have pursued other remedies against those who owed taxes instead of holding the tax collector responsible for their failure to pay. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that it would be unjust and oppressive to hold an individual accountable when there were no laws requiring him or her to do so; this could lead people in similar positions as the defendant being unfairly punished without due process of law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing such liability would create an atmosphere of fear among public officers which could ultimately undermine their ability and willingness perform their duties properly out of fear of personal liability.