Olmstead v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
277 U.S. 438 (1928)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

The use of evidence obtained from wiretapped private telephone conversations does not constitute a search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment if the surveillance is conducted without a physical trespass onto the defendant's property.

Facts:

Roy Olmstead was the general manager of a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act.
The conspiracy involved an extensive network for importing, possessing, and selling intoxicating liquors, with annual sales exceeding two million dollars.
The operation was primarily managed through telephone communications between Olmstead, his associates, and customers from various offices and homes.
Federal prohibition officers obtained information about the conspiracy by intercepting messages on the defendants' telephone lines over several months.
The agents installed the wiretaps on telephone wires in the streets near the defendants' homes and in the basement of their main office building.
Crucially, the installation of the wiretaps did not involve any physical trespass into the defendants' homes or offices.
The intercepted conversations, which were transcribed, revealed the entire scope of the criminal operation and were used as primary evidence.
The conversations included orders for liquor, coordination of deliveries, and discussions about bribing police officers.

Procedural Posture:

Olmstead and others were convicted of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and convictions.
The defendants (petitioners) successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari but limited its review to the question of whether using the wiretapped evidence violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

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 of private telephone conversations, intercepted by federal agents via wiretapping without a physical trespass on the defendants' property, violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Taft

No. The interception of telephone conversations via wiretapping without a physical trespass does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of a person's material things—their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects.' Telephone conversations are not tangible things that can be seized, and the telephone wires extending outside a person's house are not part of the constitutionally protected 'house' or 'effects.' Because the agents did not physically enter the defendants' premises, there was no 'search.' The evidence was obtained solely by the sense of hearing, which is not prohibited by the Amendment. Furthermore, since the Fourth Amendment was not violated, there is no basis for a Fifth Amendment claim of compelled self-incrimination.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Holmes

Yes. The evidence should be excluded not necessarily on constitutional grounds, but because the government should not be permitted to use evidence that it could only obtain by committing a crime. Wiretapping was a misdemeanor under Washington state law, and for the government to use the fruits of its officers' criminal acts is 'dirty business.' It is a 'less evil that some criminals should escape than that the Government should play an ignoble part.' Allowing the government to use evidence obtained by crime encourages further lawbreaking by its own agents.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Brandeis

Yes. The Constitution must be interpreted to adapt to new technologies that threaten privacy in ways the Framers could not have conceived. The Fourth Amendment's core purpose is to protect the 'right to be let alone—the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men,' which extends beyond mere physical invasions. There is no material difference between a sealed letter, which is protected, and a private telephone conversation; wiretapping is a far greater invasion of privacy than tampering with mail. Separately, the government should not benefit from its own wrongdoing, and by using evidence obtained illegally under state law, 'the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.'

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Butler

Yes. The Fourth Amendment should be construed liberally to safeguard personal rights against evils equivalent to those originally contemplated. Tapping telephone wires and listening in is a literal search for evidence. The principles of prior cases, like Boyd v. United States, show that a physical trespass is not required for a search to occur. The amendment should safeguard against all equivalent evils, and wiretapping is a clear invasion of the security the amendment was designed to protect.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stone

Yes. This opinion concurs with the reasoning presented in the dissents of Justices Holmes, Brandeis, and Butler, agreeing that the evidence was inadmissible and the judgment should be reversed.

Analysis:

Olmstead established the 'trespass doctrine,' which held that Fourth Amendment protection against searches was tied to a physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area. This narrow, literalist interpretation meant that for nearly four decades, electronic surveillance without a physical trespass was outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment. The powerful dissents, particularly Justice Brandeis's articulation of a 'right to be let alone,' laid the intellectual foundation for a major shift in constitutional privacy law. This case's central holding was ultimately overturned by Katz v. United States (1967), which replaced the trespass doctrine with the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' standard.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Olmstead v. United States (1928)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"