United States v. Philbrick is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The case involved a defendant, Philbrick, who was charged with the possession of counterfeit money. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The defendant argued that the evidence should be excluded because it was obtained illegally. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the evidence was admissible and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence, was not applicable in this case because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the items seized. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not to protect criminals from the consequences of their actions. The Court's decision in United States v. Philbrick established that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure can be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In United States v. Philbrick, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a defendant could be convicted of perjury if they had been induced by threats or promises into making false statements under oath. The majority opinion held that such an act did constitute perjury and therefore the conviction should stand. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that it would lead to injustice in cases where defendants were coerced into giving false testimony due to fear of punishment or hope for reward. He argued that allowing convictions based on such evidence would create a situation where individuals are forced against their will to testify falsely and thus deny them their right to remain silent as protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, he noted that while Congress may have intended for perjury laws to apply even when coercion is involved, there was no clear indication within existing statutes which supported this interpretation and so any decision made must be consistent with constitutional principles rather than legislative intent alone.