In this case, the ACLU represented defendant Robert G. Blair, who was appealing his conviction for the murders of Alan and Renate Wellman on December 14, 1975 at their home in Los Angeles. Blair was a narcotics dealer and Wellman was his occaisonal cocaine supplier. Wellman had previously also testified against Blair in court regarding a stolen treasury bill that Wellman had received as payment from Blair.

The primary issue in this case is whether evidence obtained without warrants and subpoenas was admissable in court, and whether the same verdict would have been reached without said evidence. The informally obtained evidence included Blair's credit card applications, charges and financial information (under the name "Robert Bartee," an alias). It also included information provided by a hotel employee about calls made from Blair's hotel room, including one to the victim's house, as well as telephone records of an associate of Blair's in Philadelphia. This information was used to track Blair's whereabouts on the days leading up to and following the murders.

The court decided that the same conviction would have been made even without the incorrectly obtained evidence, and the judgement was affirmed.