United States v. Buzzo was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a defendant, Buzzo, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict Buzzo was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible and that Buzzo could not be convicted on the basis of it. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of this amendment. The Court also held that the exclusionary rule applied in this case, which meant that the illegally obtained evidence could not be used to convict Buzzo. The Court's decision in this case established the precedent that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court and cannot be used to convict a defendant. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In United States v. Buzzo, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant who had been convicted of violating an act of Congress could be pardoned by the President and thereby have his conviction set aside. The majority opinion held that such a pardon would not affect the validity of the conviction; however, Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that since it is within the power of Congress to pass laws which can only be enforced through criminal proceedings, it should also follow that they have authority to provide for remedies in cases where those laws are violated - including granting pardons when appropriate. Furthermore, he noted that if a pardon were allowed to set aside convictions then there would no longer be any need for appeals or writs of error as all judgments could simply be overturned by presidential decree. As such, Justice Field concluded that while Congress may limit its own powers in certain respects when passing legislation, they cannot do so with regard to their ability to grant pardons and thus must accept responsibility for any consequences thereof.