Olmstead v. United States
E545157
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Olmstead v. United States canonical | 2 |
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Prohibition-era case
ⓘ
U.S. Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ privacy law ⓘ |
| arguedYear | 1927 ⓘ |
| citation | 277 U.S. 438 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fifth Amendment
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Fourth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedYear | 1928 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1928-06-04 ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
George H. Butler
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Harlan F. Stone NERFINISHED ⓘ Louis D. Brandeis NERFINISHED ⓘ Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| era | Prohibition era in the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| factsSummary |
Evidence from the wiretaps was used to convict Olmstead and others of violating the National Prohibition Act
ⓘ
Federal agents wiretapped telephone lines used by Roy Olmstead and others suspected of bootlegging without obtaining judicial warrants ⓘ |
| fullCaseName | Roy Olmstead v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| holding |
The Fourth Amendment was interpreted to protect material things, not conversations
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Warrantless wiretapping of telephone conversations conducted from outside the premises did not violate the Fourth Amendment ⓘ |
| impact |
Narrowly construed the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
ⓘ
Permitted warrantless wiretapping by federal agents so long as there was no physical trespass ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Edward T. Sanford
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
George Sutherland NERFINISHED ⓘ James C. McReynolds NERFINISHED ⓘ Pierce Butler NERFINISHED ⓘ Willis Van Devanter NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| laterTreatment | Substantially limited and effectively overruled by Katz v. United States (1967) ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
search and seizure ⓘ warrantless wiretapping ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionAuthorRole | Chief Justice of the United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William Howard Taft NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 438 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Roy Olmstead NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reasoning |
No physical trespass into the defendants’ premises occurred when the government tapped telephone lines outside the building
ⓘ
The use of evidence obtained by wiretapping did not constitute an unlawful search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment as then interpreted ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Goldman v. United States
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Katz v. United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| respondent | United States NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
electronic surveillance
ⓘ
wiretapping ⓘ |
| subsequentDoctrinalDevelopment | Replaced by the reasonable expectation of privacy test articulated in Katz v. United States ⓘ |
| volume | 277 U.S. ⓘ |
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.