In Desist v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 244, the Supreme Court considered the retroactivity of its decision in Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347 that electronic eavesdropping "can comply with constitutional standards only when authorized by a neutral magistrate upon a showing of probable cause and under precise limitations and appropriate safeguards" (Desist, at p. 246). Noting that "the eavesdropping in this case was not carried out pursuant to such a warrant ... ," the plurality opinion authored by Justice Stewart 3 explained that "the convictions must ... be reversed if Katz is to be applied to electronic surveillance conducted before the date of that decision." (Ibid.) The plurality concluded, however, that Katz "should be given wholly prospective application." (Desist, at p. 246.) Applying the three Linkletter v. Walker (1965) criteria, the plurality noted that the first criterion--"the purpose to be served by the new constitutional rule"--"strongly supports prospectivity for a decision amplifying the evidentiary exclusionary rule." (Desist, at p. 249.) The plurality also found that the second and third criteria "militate in favor of applying Katz prospectively." (Desist, at p. 250.) Finally, the plurality concluded that "all of the reasons for making Katz retroactive also undercut any distinction between final convictions and those still pending on review. Both the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule and the reliance of law enforcement officers focus upon the time of the search, not any subsequent point in the prosecution, as the relevant date. Exclusion of electronic eavesdropping evidence seized before Katz would increase the burden on the administration of justice, would overturn convictions based on fair reliance on pre-Katz decisions, and would not serve to deter similar searches and seizures in the future." (Id. at p. 253.)