Document: 394 U.S. 310 89 S.Ct. 1163 22 L.Ed.2d 297 Samuel Joseph GIORDANOv.UNITED STATES.* No. 28. March 24, 1969. Carlton Roeser, for petitioner Giordano. Irving Anolik, Scandifia. Maurice Edelbaum, Franzese. William L. Lynch Crabbe. Raymond A. Brown, Matera. Peter F. Sabbatino, Potere. J. Smith and Morris Haft, Evans. Walsh John Powers Crowley, Aiuppa. Charles Bellows, Amabile. Edward Bennett Williams, Harold Ungar, Steven M. Umin Walsh, Battaglia. Morgan, Jr., Howard Moore, George Pontikes, Marvin Karpatkin, Melvin Wulf Eleanor H. Norton, Clay. Calihan, Crowley Robert S. Bailey, petitioners Di Pietto others. Anthony DeMarie, Natarelli. Shenker, Fanelli, Jacques Schiffer, Cecil D. Branstetter Daniel B. Maher, Hoffa Clyde W. Woody Marian Rosen, Stassi. Herald Price Fahringer Frank G. Raichle, Randaccio. Hoffa. Callaghan, Strate. Richard E. Gorman, Burris. Weinblatt. Harvey Silets, Kovens. Ragano, Dranow. Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney Vinson, Beatrice Rosenberg, Sidney Glazer, Roger Pauley, Leonard Dickstein, Jerome Feit, Theodore Gilinsky, Paul C. Summitt Kirby Patterson, the United States. PER CURIAM. 1 The petitions writs of certiorari are granted, except that in 84 writ is granted as to Franzese only denied other petitioners, 317 petition Mirro McDonnell petitioners. judgments Courts Appeals these cases vacated, remanded respective District further proceedings conformity with Alderman v. States, vanov Butenko 165, 961, 176. It not evident from records some whether surveillances at issue were unlawful. may be overhearings instances achieved by trespass, see Katz 389 347, 88 507, 19 576 (1967); Desist 244, 1030, 248, Kaiser New York, 280, 1044, 274, or reasons As we held Alderman, Ivanov, Butenko, U.S., 170, S.Ct., 964, n. 3, 'the Court must develop relevant facts decide if Government's electronic surveil- 2 We read papers filed States two stating neither invaded premises nor overheard their conversation. lance was unlawful.' Of course, a finding surveillance lawful would make disclosure unnecessary. Similarly, it clear each has standing assert illegality introduction its fruits. issues resolved first instance. 3 Mr. Justice BLACK dissents, Nos. 895 911, consideration disposition which he took no part. 4 WHITE part 546, 911. 5 MARSHALL 28, 106, 129, 168, 271, 895, 6 STEWART, concurring. 7 A few words amplification this per curiam opinion help avoid misunderstanding on litigants, remanded. 8 made explicit requirement certain products governmental turned over defense counsel expressly limited situations where had violated Fourth Amendment. did those cases, do these, any violate Amendment.1 Instead, have left threshold question all cases. 9 Moreover, Ivanov today, specify procedure follow making preliminary determination. nowhere indicated determination cannot appropriately ex parte, camera proceedings. 'Nothing 176, requires an adversary proceeding full resolution every raised surveillance.' Taglianetti 316, 109 , 302. 10 Finally, addressed itself standards governing constitutionality relating gathering foreign intelligence information—necessary conduct international affairs, protection national secrets installations espionage sabotage. White elsewhere his view such does Amendment, 'if President chief legal officer, General, considered requirements security authorized reasonable.'2 While members disagreement view,3 remains open.4 11 One might suppose should entirely careful reader Court's Ivanov. Perhaps so, perhaps, therefore, what I said quite But years experience here taught me most carefully written opinions always read—even directly concerned. * Together 54, Scandifia States; 84, et al. Evans 124, Aiuppa Amabile Battaglia Clay aka Ali 317, 474, Natarelli 668, Stassi 715, Randaccio Dranow also certiorari. 715 Second Circuit; 271 668 Fifth 546 Sixth 911 Seventh 124 Tenth Circuit. In oral argument mystifyingly, sought concede there fact unconstitutional, although repeatedly invited argue they not. following colloquies during case illustrative: 'Q. Are you asking us leave open remand violates, bugging particular case, violates Amendment? 'A. Our position same arguing words, premise admit purposes illegal bugging? Yes, Justice. And going remain free district judge violation? No, sir.' deciding declined accept General's proffered concession. 364, 518, (White, concurring). Id., 359, 515 (Douglas, J., See id., 358, 515, 23.

Category: 0