In Berger v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a New York law allowing warrantless wiretapping was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The case involved Ralph Berger who was convicted of conspiracy to bribe a public official based on evidence obtained through such wiretaps. The court held that the statute did not meet constitutional standards for search warrants as it allowed eavesdropping without requiring belief in probable cause or describing with particularity what conversations were to be seized, thus violating privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. This ruling significantly impacted future cases involving surveillance and established stricter guidelines for obtaining legal authorization for electronic eavesdropping.

In the dissenting opinion for Berger v. New York, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to invalidate New York's surveillance statute was a misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment. He contended that wiretapping should not be considered unconstitutional if it is used as an investigative tool in serious criminal cases and conducted under strict judicial supervision. According to him, such measures are necessary and reasonable in certain circumstances where traditional methods of investigation may prove insufficient or ineffective. Furthermore, he believed that this ruling would significantly hinder law enforcement agencies' ability to combat organized crime effectively by limiting their access to crucial information obtained through electronic eavesdropping devices.