In the United States v. Villamonte-Marquez et al., 1982, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that customs officials could stop and search vessels on U.S waters without a warrant or probable cause under an 18th-century federal law. The case arose when two men were arrested in Louisiana after their vessel was stopped by Customs officers who found marijuana onboard. The defendants argued that they should have been protected from such searches under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, Justice Byron White wrote for a six-justice majority stating that there is long-standing recognition of government's authority to conduct random checks at borders due to national interests like immigration control and drug smuggling prevention outweighing individual privacy rights in these circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Villamonte-Marquez et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision to allow warrantless searches of vessels in customs waters without any suspicion of wrongdoing was a significant departure from Fourth Amendment principles. They contended that this ruling effectively gave law enforcement officials unchecked discretion to conduct random searches at sea, which could lead to potential abuses of power. The dissenters also pointed out that there were other less intrusive means available for enforcing customs laws such as requiring ships to dock at designated points for inspection or using patrol boats equipped with radar and radio equipment. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's reliance on historical practices dating back to 1790 because those practices were not directly applicable due to changes in technology and societal expectations about privacy rights over time.