In the case of United States v. Lori Rabin Williams, 1994, the defendant was convicted for her involvement in a drug trafficking conspiracy. The Supreme Court had to decide whether evidence obtained from wiretapped conversations that were not properly minimized according to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act could be used against Williams. The court ruled that while there were indeed violations in terms of minimization requirements during certain hours, these did not warrant suppression of all intercepted communications as most calls complied with Title III's standards. Therefore, it held that only those specific calls which violated minimization requirements should be suppressed rather than invalidating all collected evidence due to some instances of non-compliance.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Lori Rabin Williams, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Williams' conviction under 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1), which prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of federal power. The dissent contended that Congress did not intend for this statute to apply in cases like Williams', where her felony conviction had been set aside and civil rights restored by state authorities. They believed that applying this law in such circumstances infringed upon states' rights to determine their own criminal justice policies and rehabilitative measures. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential due process violations arising from punishing individuals for conduct they could not reasonably know was illegal - as might be the case when a person whose felony conviction has been expunged is still considered a felon under federal law.