In the United States v. Tanner case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Florida. The plaintiff, the U.S government, claimed that it had never officially sold or transferred certain lands to private owners and therefore still held title to them. The defendant, Mr. Tanner argued that he acquired these lands through purchase from parties who obtained them via Spanish Land Grants before Florida became part of the US territory in 1821. The court examined whether Spain indeed had authority over those lands at the time of granting and if such grants were valid under international law after cession to another country (US). It also considered whether subsequent acts by Congress validated any defective titles originating from Spanish grants. The Supreme Court decided against Mr.Tanner's claim stating that there was no evidence proving Spain's possession or control over said territories when they issued land grants; hence they lacked authority for such actions. Furthermore, it found no legislative act by Congress validating these defective titles post-cession. Therefore, it concluded that original ownership remained with US Government as successor-in-interest following acquisition from Spain without recognizing any prior invalid transfers made under Spanish rule.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Tanner, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that allowing such evidence to be used in court would set a dangerous precedent, essentially condoning unlawful actions by law enforcement officials under certain circumstances. They contended that this interpretation of the Constitution could lead to widespread abuse of power and infringements upon citizens' privacy rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that excluding illegally obtained evidence from trial would hinder criminal prosecutions; instead, they asserted it would encourage police officers to respect constitutional boundaries while conducting investigations.