United States v. Taylor was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence used to convict them was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Taylor, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict Taylor was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that Taylor could not be convicted on the basis of it. 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 this 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 decision in United States v. Taylor established the precedent that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and cannot be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Taylor, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for forfeiture of property used in violation of federal laws, as it would amount to an unconstitutional taking without due process or compensation. Furthermore, he stated that even if such a law were constitutional, it could not apply retroactively to cases which occurred before its passage. In this case specifically, Justice Field noted that there was no evidence presented by either party indicating when exactly the vessel at issue had been purchased or how long it had been owned by Taylor prior to his alleged violations of federal revenue laws; thus making any application of the statute impossible under these circumstances. Ultimately he concluded that since Congress did not have authority over forfeitures and since there was insufficient evidence regarding ownership dates for this particular vessel, then judgment must be entered in favor of Taylor on all counts against him.