In the United States v. Ventresca case of 1964, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an affidavit used to obtain a search warrant is not required to meet the same standards as evidence presented in court. The case arose when federal agents obtained a search warrant based on an affidavit containing hearsay information about illegal distilling activities at Dominic Ventresca's residence. During the trial, Ventresca argued that this constituted insufficient probable cause for issuing a search warrant and moved to suppress all evidence obtained during the raid on his home. However, Justice Brennan writing for majority held that affidavits should be interpreted in a common-sense manner rather than with hypertechnical scrutiny and if they provide sufficient basis for magistrate’s decision there was probable cause then it would justify issuance of warrants even if it contains hearsay information.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ventresca, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing a search warrant to be issued based on an affidavit from a government agent who had no firsthand knowledge of illegal activity. He contended that this ruling would allow law enforcement officers to obtain warrants based solely on hearsay or suspicion rather than concrete evidence. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to adhere strictly to constitutional requirements in order to facilitate law enforcement activities, asserting that such an approach threatened civil liberties. In his view, any relaxation of these requirements could lead down a slippery slope towards arbitrary invasions of privacy by government officials.