In the United States v. Giordano et al., 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that wiretap evidence obtained in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act could not be used in court. The case revolved around a federal statute requiring specific authorization for wiretaps from either the Attorney General or an Assistant Attorney General specially designated by him. In this instance, such approval was given by someone who did not have statutory authority to do so. The government argued that this was merely a procedural error and should not result in suppression of evidence; however, the Supreme Court disagreed stating it as more than just an administrative oversight but rather a fundamental safeguard against unwarranted invasions of privacy.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Giordano et al., Justice White disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, arguing that it was too restrictive. He contended that while Congress intended to limit who could authorize wiretap applications within the Department of Justice, they did not intend to invalidate all wiretaps where such procedures were not strictly followed. The justice argued that even if there was a procedural error in obtaining authorization for a wiretap, as long as there was no prejudice against defendants or violation of their constitutional rights, evidence obtained from such should be admissible in court. In his view, suppressing validly obtained evidence due to minor administrative errors would only serve to undermine law enforcement efforts without providing any significant protection for individual privacy rights.