United States v. Steever 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 was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Steever, who was charged with the possession of a still and other materials used to make illegal liquor. The evidence used to convict Steever was obtained through a search of his property without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court and that Steever could not be convicted on the basis of that evidence. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of that amendment. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, meaning that any evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court. The Court's decision in United States v. Steever established the precedent that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and that defendants cannot be convicted on the basis of such evidence. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In United States v. Steever, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a defendant who had been convicted of an offense against the United States could be released from prison on habeas corpus if he had already served his sentence in full. The majority opinion held that such a release was not possible and that it would be contrary to public policy for courts to interfere with executive decisions regarding prisoners' sentences. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress did not intend for federal judges to have no power over cases involving prisoners who had completed their sentences and were still being detained by the government. He argued further that allowing habeas corpus relief in these circumstances would ensure justice is done when there are errors or abuses of discretion by those responsible for administering criminal law within the Executive Branch.