In the United States v. Wong You case of 1911, Wong You was convicted for murdering a fellow Chinese immigrant in Arizona Territory and sentenced to death. His defense argued that his confession had been obtained through torture by local law enforcement officials who allegedly tied him up and threatened him with lynching if he did not confess to the crime. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wong You, stating that confessions extracted under physical or psychological duress are not admissible as evidence in court because they violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. This ruling set an important precedent regarding police interrogation methods and suspects' rights during criminal investigations.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Wong You, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was fundamentally flawed. He contended that such practices were in direct violation of constitutional rights, specifically those outlined in the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he believed this ruling set a dangerous precedent by allowing law enforcement officers to disregard these protections with impunity as long as they could secure convictions using illegally obtained evidence. In his view, upholding such convictions would undermine public trust in law enforcement agencies and erode civil liberties over time.