Hugo Black

“ It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. [8] The case of Rochin v. California, [9] which we decided three years after the Wolf case, authenticated, I think, the soundness of Mr. Justice Bradley's and Mr. Justice Rutledge's reliance upon the interrelationship between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as requiring the exclusion of unconstitutionally seized evidence. ”

“ Justice Bradley in the Boyd case:
[C] onstitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. ”

“ In Wolf v. Colorado, decided in 1948, however, this Court held that,
in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime, the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. [2] I concurred in that holding on these grounds:
For reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 68, I agree with the conclusion of the Court that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable searches and seizures" is enforceable against the states. ”

“ In truth, the practical result of this ad hoc approach is simply that, when five Justices are sufficiently revolted by local police action, a conviction is overturned and a guilty man may go free. [16] [p666] Only one thing emerged with complete clarity from the Irvine case — that is that seven Justices rejected the "shock the conscience" constitutional standard enunciated in the Wolf and Rochin cases. ”