Quick Summary
During Prohibition, the government suspected Olmstead of illegally importing alcohol. The government wiretapped Olmstead’s home and office without a warrant to gather evidence. When convicted, Olmstead appealed to the U.S. Supreme court against breach of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Rule of Law
The use of wiretapped private telephone conversations obtained by federal agents without a warrant and subsequently used as the evidence does not violate the rights provided by the Fourth Amendment.
Facts of the Case
The case centered on the prosecution of Roy Olmstead (plaintiff), a resident of Washington state, for attempting to smuggle and sell alcohol in violation of Prohibition. Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger and the controller of crimes involving drugs and alcohol. He was accused of possessing, transporting, and selling alcohol unlawfully.
Olmsted and others generated millions of dollars annually through innovative commercial practices and his police force contacts. Federal agents illegally wiretapped the plaintiff’s residence and office to collect evidence.
Olmsted and several others were convicted of conspiracy to violate the national prohibition act based on evidence acquired by agents. Olmstead’s appeal reached the Supreme Court after his conviction because he argued that the wiretapping legislation violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive search and seizure. Olmstead filed an appeal, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issue
If the government listened in on people’s private telephone calls without their consent to gather evidence, does this comes under the violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
Holding and Conclusion
No.
After suspecting Olmstead for years, the government gathered evidence by wiretapping Olmstead’s phones without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme court ruled that the wiretapping did not violate the fourth or fifth amendment to the constitution as the fourth amendment only applied to physical searches and not electronic surveillance. Therefore, the gathered evidence can be used in court.
Reasoning and Analysis
In addition, the Fourth Amendment rights of the parties were not violated because wiretapping does not constitute a search or seizure. These terms apply to a comprehensive examination of a person’s person, documents, tangibles, or home. They do not intend a conversation. Even though wiretapping is immoral, the court decided that the evidence could still be used in the trial.
Relevant FAQs of this case
Was this case brief helpful?