In the 1990 case United States v. Darlina K. France, the defendant was convicted of knowingly and intentionally distributing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. The conviction was based on evidence obtained from wiretaps authorized by a district court judge under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. France challenged her conviction arguing that it violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches because there were other investigative procedures available to law enforcement which they did not exhaust before resorting to wiretapping - an argument known as "alternative investigatory techniques". However, both the District Court and later the Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that law enforcement is not required to exhaust all other possible means of investigation before using wiretap surveillance if such methods appear unlikely to succeed or are too dangerous.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Darlina K. France argued that the majority's decision to uphold France's conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine was based on insufficient evidence and a misinterpretation of conspiracy law. The dissent contended that mere knowledge or association with individuals involved in illegal activities does not constitute participation in a criminal conspiracy, as required by law. They pointed out that there was no direct evidence showing France had agreed to join the drug distribution scheme, which is an essential element of a conspiracy charge under federal law. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for relying heavily on circumstantial evidence and inference rather than concrete proof when making their determination about her involvement in the alleged crime.