In the case of Giordano v. United States (1968), Anthony Giordano was convicted for illegal possession and sale of narcotics based on evidence obtained through a wiretap authorized by the Attorney General's Executive Assistant, rather than directly by the Attorney General himself as required under Title III of Omnibus Crime Control Act. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Giordano, stating that this violation invalidated his conviction because it did not comply with federal law which mandates that only certain high-ranking Department of Justice officials can authorize such surveillance measures to ensure they are used sparingly and responsibly. Therefore, any evidence collected via these unauthorized wiretaps could not be used against him in court.

In the dissenting opinion for Giordano v. United States, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision undermined Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing wiretapping without a warrant in certain cases. He contended that this was an overreach of government power and violated citizens' right to privacy. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act as permitting such actions; instead, he believed it required judicial approval for all wiretaps regardless of circumstances or individuals involved. In his view, any exception to this rule would create a dangerous precedent where law enforcement could bypass constitutional safeguards at their discretion.