In the case of Wetzel v. Ohio, 1962, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ohio. The appellant, Wetzel was convicted for first-degree murder and sentenced to death by an Ohio state court. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he was denied a fair trial due to pre-trial publicity which influenced jury selection and biased their decision against him. However, upon review of the voir dire examination record (a process where prospective jurors are questioned about potential biases), it appeared that all jurors stated under oath they had not formed any opinion as to guilt or innocence based on media coverage and could render an impartial verdict solely based on evidence presented in court. Therefore, the Supreme Court found no violation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment as claimed by Wetzel.

In the dissenting opinion for Wetzel v. Ohio, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. The dissenting justices believed that there were no exigent circumstances justifying such an intrusion without a warrant, as required by constitutional law. They contended that police officers had ample time to secure a warrant before conducting their search but chose not to do so, thus violating due process protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on "constructive possession," arguing instead that mere proximity or access does not equate actual control over illegal substances found in shared spaces like common areas of an apartment building where multiple tenants have equal access. Therefore, they felt this case set a dangerous precedent which could potentially erode individual privacy rights protected under U.S constitution.