In the United States v. Malphurs et al., 1941, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the government of taxes on distilled spirits. The defendants were charged with conspiring to possess an unregistered still, make mash fit for distillation at an unauthorized place, and carry on business as distillers without giving bond or obtaining permit. They were also accused of working together to remove and conceal spirits upon which tax had not been paid. The court found that there was sufficient evidence presented by the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that all defendants participated in a single conspiracy as charged in one count of indictment rather than multiple separate conspiracies as argued by defense counsel. Therefore, it held that no fatal variance existed between allegations in indictment charging one general conspiracy and proof offered at trial showing participation by all defendants in such scheme.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Malphurs case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping was unconstitutional and violated Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenters believed that allowing such evidence would set a dangerous precedent, opening the door for law enforcement agencies to invade citizens' privacy without proper checks or balances. They contended that even if wiretapping could potentially yield valuable information in criminal investigations, it should not be permitted unless there were strict regulations governing its use to prevent abuse of power by authorities. Furthermore, they asserted that any evidence obtained through these means should be deemed inadmissible due to its intrusive nature and potential for misuse.