Olmstead et al. v. United States
277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to telephone conversations intercepted without a physical trespass onto the defendant's property. The interception of conversations via wiretap does not constitute a "search" or "seizure" within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Roy Olmstead and others operated a large-scale conspiracy to import and sell intoxicating liquors in Seattle, Washington, in violation of the National Prohibition Act.
- The criminal enterprise was extensive, employing many people, using seagoing vessels, and generating millions of dollars in annual sales.
- Olmstead and his associates relied heavily on telephones to conduct their illegal business, making calls from their homes and a central office.
- Federal prohibition agents, without a warrant, intercepted the conspirators' telephone conversations over several months.
- To intercept the calls, agents installed wiretaps on telephone lines in the streets near the defendants' homes and in the basement of the office building housing their main office.
- The agents never physically entered the private homes or offices of the defendants to install the wiretaps.
- The information gathered from the intercepted conversations constituted the primary evidence used to prove the conspiracy's existence and scope.
Procedural Posture:
- Roy Olmstead and others were indicted and prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act.
- At trial, the government introduced evidence obtained from wiretaps; the defendants moved to exclude this evidence, arguing it was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
- The district court (trial court) overruled the defendants' objections, admitted the evidence, and the defendants were convicted.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendants (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, with the Court limiting its review to the constitutional question regarding the wiretap evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of evidence obtained from wiretapped private telephone conversations, where federal agents did not physically trespass on the defendants' property, violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Taft
No, the use of evidence obtained from wiretapped private telephone conversations does not violate the Fourth Amendment where there was no physical trespass. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person's "persons, houses, papers, and effects." The Court reasoned that a telephone conversation is not a tangible thing and therefore does not fall into any of these protected categories. Because the agents did not physically enter the defendants' homes or offices, there was no "search." The evidence was obtained only through the sense of hearing, so there was no "seizure" of material things. The Court concluded that the telephone wires extending outside a person's house are not part of the protected premises, and any expansion of the Fourth Amendment's meaning to cover new technology must be done by Congress, not the judiciary.
Dissenting - Justice Brandeis
Yes, the wiretapping did violate the Fourth Amendment. The Constitution must be interpreted to adapt to new technologies and modern conditions, rather than being confined to the specific evils known to the framers. The core principle of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is to protect individual privacy and "the right to be let alone — the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Wiretapping is a far more insidious and far-reaching invasion of privacy than the physical searches the framers feared. There is no meaningful difference between a sealed letter, which is protected, and a private telephone conversation. Furthermore, when the government commits a crime (wiretapping was a misdemeanor under Washington state law) to secure a conviction, it undermines the rule of law and breeds contempt for it.
Dissenting - Justice Holmes
Yes, the evidence should be excluded, although not necessarily on constitutional grounds. It is "dirty business" for the government to obtain evidence by committing a crime. The court should refuse to sanction such conduct to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. Justice Holmes famously stated, "I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the Government should play an ignoble part."
Dissenting - Justice Butler
Yes, the wiretapping was an unconstitutional search. The Fourth Amendment should be construed liberally to safeguard against all evils that are equivalent to those specified in its text. Tapping telephone wires and listening to private conversations is a literal search for evidence. The communications belong to the parties involved, and the government's interference with them falls within the spirit and purpose of the constitutional protection.
Analysis:
Olmstead established the "trespass doctrine," a narrow, property-based interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that stood for nearly four decades. This ruling meant that government surveillance, including electronic eavesdropping, was constitutional as long as it did not involve a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area. The decision significantly limited privacy rights in the face of advancing technology. However, the case is equally famous for Justice Brandeis's powerful dissent, which championed a right to privacy and argued for an adaptive constitutional interpretation; his reasoning laid the essential groundwork for the Supreme Court's eventual reversal of this doctrine in Katz v. United States (1967), which replaced the trespass test with the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard.
Unlock the full brief for Olmstead et al. v. United States