In the 1998 case of David Conn and Carol Najera v. Paul L. Gabbert, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's presence during a witness' grand jury testimony did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of an attorney under investigation. The case arose when Conn, an attorney who was being investigated for illegal activities related to his clients, had his office searched by authorities while he was compelled to be present at a client’s grand jury testimony without prior notice or opportunity to challenge it in court. He argued this violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures as well as impeding on his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because he could not contest the search warrant before it was executed nor represent himself effectively during its execution. However, the Supreme Court held that neither amendment guarantees attorneys under criminal investigation any such procedural protections.

In the dissenting opinion for David Conn and Carol Najera v. Paul L. Gabbert, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize a lawyer’s role in protecting their client’s constitutional rights during an ongoing investigation. He asserted that by allowing prosecutors to interrupt confidential discussions between attorneys and clients without any justification, it undermines the Sixth Amendment right of accused individuals to counsel assistance. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that no harm was done because there were no formal charges against Conn at this time; instead, he believed that once a person becomes a target of an investigation they should be entitled to legal protection from intrusive actions like those carried out by Gabbert.