In the United States v. Payner case of 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained illegally by a federal agent could be used in court if it was not directly related to the defendant's constitutional rights. The case involved an IRS agent who had stolen documents from a banker's briefcase which implicated Midwest businessman Jack Payner in tax evasion. Although this act violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, these rights were deemed irrelevant because they belonged to the banker, not Payner himself. Therefore, despite acknowledging that government misconduct had occurred during investigation process, the Supreme Court allowed for use of unlawfully procured evidence since it did not infringe upon Payner’s own constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Payner, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to suppress evidence obtained through a government agent's unauthorized actions was misguided and could potentially undermine future law enforcement efforts. He contended that while the agent’s conduct was indeed reprehensible, it did not violate any of Payner’s constitutional rights as he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in documents held by third parties. Furthermore, he asserted that suppressing such evidence would only serve to punish society at large rather than deter individual misconduct by law enforcement officers. The exclusionary rule should be applied when its remedial objectives are most efficaciously served - which is when violations of personal constitutional rights have occurred - but this case didn't meet those criteria according to him.