The case concerned the extent of the government's power to limit an individual's complete control of his or her home pending the arrival of a search warrant.

A divided Court held that the search was not unconstitutional because there was a reasonable law-enforcement need to acquire a warrant, namely, to prevent the potential destruction of evidence within the home.

[7] Breyer wrote that the Court found "no case in which [we have] held unlawful a temporary seizure that was supported by probable cause and was designed to prevent the loss of evidence while the police diligently obtained a warrant in a reasonable period of time.

[9] Justice Souter joined Breyer's opinion in all respects but wrote separately to condition his support on the belief that the search was appropriate only because of the immediate danger that the evidence could have been destroyed.

[10][11] Justice Stevens wrote a brief dissenting opinion arguing that the case should have been dismissed because the Illinois legislature has largely reduced penalties for marijuana possession, which made it ridiculous for the officers to rush to get a warrant.