In the United States v. Lefkowitz et al., 1931, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrantless search of an office was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case involved federal prohibition agents who arrested three men in their office without warrants for selling alcohol illegally during Prohibition. After arresting them, they searched the premises and seized various business records as evidence without consent or a search warrant. The defendants moved to suppress this evidence on grounds it had been obtained unlawfully but were denied by lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that while arrests could be made without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe someone has committed a felony, this does not extend to searching private property connected with person arrested unless it's part of his person or within his immediate control and possession at time of arrest. Therefore, since no such conditions existed when officers conducted their search in this case, it was deemed illegal.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Lefkowitz et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon Fourth Amendment rights. He contended that a warrantless search, even in connection to an arrest, should be limited to preventing harm or destruction of evidence - not as a general exploratory tool for law enforcement. In this case, he believed there was no immediate danger or risk of losing evidence which would justify such an intrusive search without a warrant. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on common law practices from England at the time of America’s founding because those practices were often more invasive than what modern standards allow under constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.