In the case of Virginia v. David Lee Moore, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Virginia by a vote of 9-0. The issue at hand was whether police officers violated Moore's Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested him for driving on a suspended license - an offense that under state law should have only resulted in a summons rather than arrest and search. However, the court held that even though the arrest violated state law, it did not necessarily violate Moore's constitutional rights because driving with a suspended license is still considered an arrestable offense under federal standards. Therefore, any evidence obtained during his subsequent search (in this case cocaine) could be used against him in court without violating his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the dissenting opinion for Virginia v. David Lee Moore, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Moore's conviction despite a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. She argued that the police officers' mistake in arresting Moore was not reasonable because they should have been aware of state law prohibiting arrest for certain minor offenses. Furthermore, she contended that allowing such mistakes would undermine citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by encouraging ignorance among law enforcement about legal standards for arrest. In her view, this could lead to more widespread violations of civil liberties without any meaningful consequences for those who violate them.