United States v. Price was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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, Price, who was charged with the illegal sale of liquor. The evidence used to convict Price was obtained through a search and seizure that was conducted without a warrant. Price argued that the evidence should be excluded because it was obtained illegally. The Court disagreed, holding that the evidence was admissible and that Price 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 search and seizure was conducted in good faith. The Court noted that the officers had acted in accordance with the law and that the evidence was obtained in a reasonable manner. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule was intended to deter police misconduct, not to punish officers who acted in good faith. The Court's decision in United States v. Price established that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure can be used to convict a defendant. The Court's decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in criminal law.

In United States v. Price, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of conspiracy to violate civil rights laws when no overt act had been committed in furtherance of that conspiracy. The majority opinion held that such an offense did not require proof of any overt acts and affirmed the conviction. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress never intended for criminal liability to attach without some form of action taken by the accused conspirators towards achieving their unlawful goal. He argued that it would be unjust to punish someone simply for agreeing or conspiring to commit a crime if they had done nothing else beyond making those agreements or plans. Furthermore, he noted how allowing convictions based solely on agreement would lead to arbitrary prosecutions and encourage individuals who were wrongfully charged with crimes they never committed due to lack of evidence proving any actual actions taken in furtherance of said conspiracy.