In his concurring opinion, Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Justices Brennan and White, focused on the implications of the case on the Fourth Amendment. Stewart argued that law enforcement had no right to seize the obscene films found in Stanley’s home because their search warrant stated that the place be searched with “particularity,” specifically for “equipment, records, and other material used in or derived from an illegal wagering business.”

Stewart explained that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to “guarantee to the people of this Nation that they should forever be secure from the general searches and unrestrained seizures that had been a hated hallmark of colonial rule under the notorious writs of assistance of the British Crown.” He further explained that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant that specifically outlines their authority in conducting a search. He cited the Court’s opinion in Marron v. United States (1927), in which it held that “[t]he requirement that warrants shall particularly describe the things to be seized makes general searches under them impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another.” Applying that standard to Stanley’s case, Stewart held that the obscene films were unlawfully obtained.

Stewart noted that this case does not impact the authority of law enforcement to perform a search incident to an arrest, but he concluded that “[t]o condone what happened here is to invite a government official to use a seemingly precise and legal warrant only as a ticket to get into a man's home, and, once inside, to launch forth upon unconfined searches and indiscriminate seizures as if armed with all the unbridled and illegal power of a general warrant.”