In the case of Giordenello v. United States, 1957, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that an arrest warrant for petitioner Joseph Giordenello was invalid because it did not provide sufficient facts to support a reasonable belief that he had committed a crime. The court found that the complaint used to obtain his arrest warrant merely stated conclusions without any supporting factual circumstances and therefore failed to meet constitutional requirements under the Fourth Amendment. This amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring probable cause based on specific facts rather than mere suspicion or personal belief. Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of this unlawful arrest was deemed inadmissible in court, leading to Giordenello's conviction being overturned.

In the dissenting opinion for Giordenello v. United States, Justice Tom C. Clark disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Giordenello's conviction on grounds of an insufficient complaint. He argued that the complaint was valid as it had been sworn before a U.S. Commissioner and contained factual assertions supporting probable cause for arrest, which he believed should be enough under Rule 4 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, he contended that if there were any deficiencies in the complaint, they could have been corrected by referring to accompanying affidavits or testimony given at preliminary hearings - resources available to both magistrate and defendant prior to trial but ignored by majority ruling. Lastly, Justice Clark expressed concern over potential negative impacts this decision might have on law enforcement efficiency; fearing it would unnecessarily complicate procedures and hinder quick responses necessary in criminal investigations.