and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government." Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Black, Justice Reed, and Justice Burton dissented without opinion. Analysis and subsequent developments Johnson has come to stand for the idea that warrants are presumptively required for Fourth Amendment searches. The government must point to "exceptional circumstances" to demonstrate why its officers should be "excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate." Later decisions have continued to cite Johnson for the existence of a "warrant requirement." For example, in 1958, the Court cited Johnson as authority that "a search must rest upon a search warrant," with only "jealously and carefully drawn" exceptions. Pro-warrant rhetoric reached its crest in the landmark case Katz v. United States, when the Court wrote that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable." However, even at the time of Katz, there were many exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances, consent searches, and the automobile exception. The quantity and scope of these exceptions increased under the more conservative Burger and Rehnquist Courts. By 1985, a legal scholar had compiled a list of up to twenty warrant exceptions. Justices across the ideological spectrum agreed that the so-called "warrant requirement" was no longer an accurate description of the law. Justice Stevens bemoaned that "the exceptions have all but swallowed the general rule,", while Justice Scalia, who opposed the warrant requirement, agreed that it had "become so riddled with exceptions that it was basically unrecognizable." See also List of United States Supreme Court cases List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 333 References External links 1948 in United States case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Vinson Court United States Fourth Amendment case law