In 1963, a housing inspector from San Francisco's health department entered an apartment building to conduct a routine inspection to locate possible code violations.

The California district court of appeal, relying on the previous case of Frank v. Maryland (1959),[1] upholding a conviction in similar circumstances, ruled against the tenant.

Writing for the Court, Justice White wrote that, “having concluded that Frank v. State of Maryland,[1] to the extent that it sanctioned such warrantless inspections, must be overruled, we reverse.”[2] He first reviewed principles of the Fourth Amendment, noting that “the basic purpose of this Amendment...is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials.”[2] He then reviewed Frank's reasoning, “re-examin[ing] of the factors which persuaded the Frank majority to adopt”[3] its approach.

He disagreed with Frank that routine inspections are peripheral and that “it is surely anomalous to say that the individual and his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.”[4] He reviewed other aspects of Frank, and found that “administrative searches of the kind at issue here are significant intrusions upon the interest protected by the Fourth Amendment.”[5] White then discussed “whether some other accommodation between public need and individual rights is essential”[5] when dealing with public health and safety.

In a dissent to two cases (See v. City of Seattle and this case), Justice Clark wrote, “Today, the Court renders this municipal experience [to inspect buildings], which dates back to Colonial days, for naught by overruling Frank v. Maryland and by striking down hundreds of city ordinances throughout the country and jeopardizing thereby the health, welfare, and safety of literally millions of people.