U.S. Supreme Court GIORDANO v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 310 (1969) 394 U.S. 310

GIORDANO v. UNITED STATES. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No. 28. Decided March 24, 1969.*

[Footnote *] Together with No. 54, Scandifia v. United States; No. 84, Franzese et al. v. United States; No. 106, Evans v. United States; No. 124, Aiuppa v. United States; No. 129, Amabile v. United States; No. 168, Battaglia v. United States; No. 271, Clay, aka Ali v. United States; No. 317, Di Pietto et al. v. United States; No. 474, Natarelli v. United States; No. 546, Hoffa et al. v. United States; No. 668, Stassi v. United States; No. 715, Randaccio v. United States; No. 895, Hoffa et al. v. United States; and No. 911, Dranow v. United States, also on petitions for writs of certiorari. Nos. 54, 84, 474, and 715 are to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Nos. 271 and 668 are to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; No. 546 is to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Nos. 106, 129, 168, 317, 895, and 911 are to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; and No. 124 is to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

[Page 394 U.S. 310, 313]

We read the papers filed by the United States in these two cases as stating that the surveillances neither invaded the premises of the other petitioners nor overheard their conversations.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

A few words in amplification of this per curiam opinion may help to avoid misunderstanding on the part of the litigants, and of the District Courts to which these cases are remanded.

As we made explicit in Alderman, Butenko, and Ivanov, the requirement that certain products of governmental electronic surveillance be turned over to defense counsel was expressly limited to situations where the surveillance had violated the Fourth Amendment. We did not decide in those cases, and we do not decide in these, that any of the surveillances did violate the Fourth Amendment.[Footnote 1]

[Page 394 U.S. 310, 315]

has elsewhere made clear his view that such surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment, "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable."[Footnote 2] While two members of the Court have indicated disagreement with that view,[Footnote 3] the issue remains open.[Footnote 4]

[Page 394 U.S. 310, 316]