Berger v. New York

A New York statute let judges authorize wiretaps based only on an official's oath that reasonable grounds existed to believe eavesdropping would reveal evidence of crime, specifying the target and phone number and capping surveillance at two months. New York (plaintiff) used a wiretap authorized under this law to record a conversation between Ralph Berger (defendant) and a third party, leading to a bribery prosecution; Berger challenged the statute as violating the Fourth Amendment, and the state courts upheld the law before the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.