In United States v. William Pollard, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The defendant, William Pollard, was charged with receiving stolen goods, and the evidence used to convict him 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 admissible in court and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, does not provide a remedy for the defendant in this case. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, does not apply to criminal proceedings. The Court also held that the defendant's conviction was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. The Court reasoned that the defendant was not compelled to testify against himself, as the evidence used to convict him was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was admissible in court and that the defendant could be convicted. The Court reasoned that the exclusionary rule does not apply to criminal proceedings and that the defendant's conviction was not a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

In United States v. William Pollard, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of larceny for stealing goods from a vessel that had been abandoned by its crew and left adrift at sea. The majority opinion held that such an act constituted larceny, as it was not considered salvage under maritime law. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that the abandonment of a vessel should be treated differently than other forms of property in terms of criminal liability for theft. He reasoned that since no one else had any claim to the ship or its contents when it was found drifting at sea, taking items from it did not constitute larceny but rather salvage rights which were recognized by maritime law. Furthermore, he noted that if Pollard's actions were deemed illegal then so too would those who rescue people or cargo from ships in distress - something which is generally accepted as lawful behavior today