In the case of Scott et al. v. United States in 1977, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not evidence obtained through electronic surveillance was admissible if it exceeded the scope authorized by a court order. The FBI had been granted permission to wiretap Alderman Scott's phone for a period of 15 days but continued monitoring his calls beyond this timeframe without obtaining an extension from the court. During this extended period, they gathered evidence implicating him in illegal gambling operations which was used to convict him at trial. On appeal, Scott argued that all evidence obtained should be suppressed as it violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court held that while any information collected after the expiration of a surveillance order is indeed unlawful, suppression isn't always necessary under these circumstances because there are other remedies available for such violations like civil suits against offending officers or disciplinary action within their department. Therefore, even though some of the recordings were unlawfully obtained due to exceeding time limits set by judicial authorization orders (Title III), they could still be admitted into evidence since exclusion wasn’t mandated by Title III itself nor required constitutionally.

In the dissenting opinion for Scott et al. v. United States, Justice Potter Stewart argued that the majority's decision violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that wiretapping constitutes a search under this amendment and therefore requires a warrant specifying its scope and duration to be constitutionally valid. In this case, he believed law enforcement overstepped their bounds by continuing surveillance after they had obtained enough evidence to achieve their stated purpose - identifying participants in an illegal gambling operation. The continued interception of conversations unrelated to this objective was unnecessary and intrusive, constituting an unreasonable search in his view.