Zhou’s lawyers argued that when they entered his home without evidence, the police violated Zhou’s Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. They also argued that allowing the use of illegally obtained evidence in court would violate the purpose of the Fourth Amendment. Lawyers on behalf of the government argued that arrests were based on a full-featured reason. The evidence found in the search confirmed what the police suspected: Zhou was guilty and the evidence proved this. Therefore, the lawyer concluded that it should be eligible for use in court. In a decision made by the court, William Day, on February 24, 1914, the court ruled that the search and confiscation of evidence at the home of the week violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court stated that the protection of the Fourth Amendment applies to those who are “accused of crimes”. Officials need an arrest warrant or consent to search the home of the week. When the court refused to return the evidence of the detention, the federal government also violated the Fourth Amendment protection measures of the week. In an unreasonable search, the court rejected a major argument of the government. The government’s lawyers tried to prove the similarities between Adams v. The New York case and the weekly case. In the case of Adams v. New York, the court ruled that the evidence seized by chance during a legal, guaranteed search could be used in court. The court refused to apply the ruling reached in Adams v. New York because the officer did not use the warrant to search the home of the week. The judge ruled that the evidence seized illegally was “from the fruit of the poisonous tree.” It cannot be used in federal courts. Allowing local prosecutors to use these evidences to convict the week violates the intent of the Fourth Amendment.