In the United States v. Rabinowitz case of 1949, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of law enforcement's right to conduct a warrantless search within an individual's place of business following their arrest. The defendant, Abraham Rabinowitz, was arrested for knowingly possessing and selling fraudulent postage stamps at his place of work. Upon his arrest, officers conducted a thorough search without obtaining a warrant which led to the discovery of additional counterfeit stamps. Rabinowitz challenged this action arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as no exigent circumstances existed that would justify such extensive search without a warrant. The court held (5-3) that given the lawful arrest had taken place on premises owned by Mr.Rabinowitz where he carried out illegal activities; therefore, it was reasonable for officers to thoroughly inspect areas under immediate control or possession of accused without needing separate warrants for each item seized during this process. This decision expanded police powers regarding searches connected with an arrest but later got limited by Chimel v California (1969), emphasizing necessity for spatial limitation while conducting post-arrest premise searches.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rabinowitz, Justice Jackson disagreed with the majority's ruling that a warrantless search of an office was reasonable under Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He argued that this decision eroded constitutional safeguards by expanding law enforcement's power to conduct warrantless searches beyond immediate exigencies or emergencies. According to him, such broad interpretation could lead to potential abuses of authority and infringe upon individual liberties. He emphasized that warrants should be obtained whenever practicable as they provide neutral judicial oversight over police actions, thereby preventing arbitrary invasions of privacy rights. Furthermore, he criticized the court’s reliance on subjective factors like reasonableness in determining legality instead of adhering strictly to objective standards provided by existing laws and precedents.