In the United States v. Sampson et al., 1962, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving defendants who were charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government by making false statements in order to secure loans from Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The defendants argued that they had been entrapped by an undercover agent of the FBI and thus their conviction should be overturned. However, after reviewing evidence presented at trial, including testimony from both sides about interactions between agents and defendants, it was determined that there was no entrapment as claimed by defense counsel. Instead, it appeared that any suggestion of illegal activity originated not from law enforcement but rather from one or more of the accused individuals themselves. As such, even though some actions taken by federal officers might have facilitated commission of crimes under investigation - for example providing opportunities for fraudulent loan applications - these did not amount to inducement necessary for successful entrapment defense under prevailing legal standards at time this case was decided.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Sampson et al., 1962 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings. The dissenters contended that allowing such evidence to be used would undermine citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. They believed this ruling could set a dangerous precedent where law enforcement officers might feel encouraged to disregard these constitutional protections, knowing any illegally obtained evidence could still be admissible in court. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuses of power by police without proper checks and balances in place.