In the United States v. Mock case of 1892, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The defendant, Mock, claimed to have purchased a parcel of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment from the Creek Nation under an agreement with the U.S government. However, this sale was made before Congress passed legislation allowing for such sales and transfers. The plaintiff, United States Government argued that since at the time of purchase there were no laws permitting Native Americans to sell their allotted lands without federal approval; hence Mock's claim was invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that until Congress enacted specific legislation allowing for these types of transactions between private individuals and Native Americans regarding their allotted lands; any such agreements would be considered null and void due to lack thereof legal authority or consent by Federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mock, 1892, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that any evidence procured in this manner should be deemed inadmissible in court as it is tainted by illegality from its inception. They contended that allowing such evidence would undermine citizens' constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby setting a dangerous precedent for future cases. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power by law enforcement agencies if such practices were condoned by the courts.