In Alderman et al. v. United States (1968), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that defendants in a criminal trial have the right to examine government wiretap evidence used against them, even if they were not parties to the intercepted conversations. The case involved three petitioners who had been convicted of conspiracy based on evidence obtained from illegal wiretaps installed by federal agents without court approval. They argued that their Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and sought access to all records of overheard conversations, regardless of whether they were directly implicated or not. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, holding that an aggrieved person under 18 USC Section 2510(11) includes not only those whose conversations have been illegally intercepted but also those whose premises have been unlawfully surveilled.

In the dissenting opinion for Alderman et al. v. United States, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to require defendants to prove they were victims of illegal surveillance before obtaining access to government records was unduly burdensome and contrary to principles of fairness and justice. He contended that this requirement placed an unreasonable burden on defendants who may not have sufficient information or resources at their disposal to make such a showing. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by law enforcement agencies if they are allowed unchecked discretion in conducting electronic surveillance operations without judicial oversight or accountability mechanisms in place. Thus, he advocated for more robust protections against unwarranted intrusions into personal privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.