Olmstead v. United States

Also found in: Wikipedia.

Olmstead v. United States

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S. Ct. 564, 72 L. Ed. 944 (1928), was the first case dealing with the issue of whether messages passing over telephone wires are within the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In Olmstead, several individuals were convicted of a conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act (41 Stat. 305) by illegally possessing, transporting, and importing intoxicating liquors, maintaining nuisances, and selling intoxicating liquors. The information leading to the discovery of the conspiracy was, for the most part, obtained through the interception of messages on the telephones of the conspirators by four federal Prohibition officers. Wires were placed along the ordinary telephone wires from the homes of four of the defendants and along the wires that led to their main office of operation. The insertion of the wires was made without any Trespass having been committed on any of the defendants' property since it was done in the basement of the large office building and in the streets near the residences.

The Supreme Court held that messages passing over telephone wires were not within the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The eavesdropper had to have physically trespassed in order for evidence procured by Wiretapping to be regarded as having been obtained unconstitutionally. The Court reasoned that, since there was no entry of the homes or offices of the defendants, there was no physical trespass. In addition, in spite of the fact that the evidence leading to the conviction was obtained in violation of a state statute that made it a misdemeanor to intercept telegraphic or telephonic messages, the Court indicated that the statute did not declare that evidence obtained in such manner would be inadmissible, and it was not inadmissible under Common Law.

Subsequently the Olmstead case was over-ruled, the physical trespass doctrine abandoned, and the holding in Olmstead is no longer the law. Under current law, in order for Electronic Surveillance to be constitutionally permissible, it must be done pursuant to the prior authorization by a court.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
References in periodicals archive ?
He also was the plaintiff in Olmstead v. United States, one of the most important Fourth Amendment cases to arise during Prohibition.
In the dissenting opinion of Olmstead v. United States, Justice Brandeis discussed the far-reaching consequences of the government's warrantless wiretapping.
The Use of Wiretapping in Olmstead v. United States
United States, Olmstead v. United States, The New Deal Cases, The Flag-Salute Cases, Brown v.
Olmstead v. United States. (184) However, Scalia gives relatively short
New York (1905), Brandeis's Olmstead v. United States (1928), Murphy's Korematsu v.
That logic led the Supreme Court to conclude, in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, that a wiretap on a suspect's phone wasn't a search, since it required no physical intrusion on the target's property.
The first section examines in some detail the decision in Olmstead v. United States in which the court ruled that unjustified isolation of people with disabilities is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability and requires states to provide community based services.
model for this analysis, the use of wiretaps by the government framed privacy in the context of prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure and self-incrimination in the case Olmstead v. United States. The Supreme Court found no physical trespass and thereby no search and seizure.
For example, in Olmstead v. United States (1928), which was the first wiretap case in Supreme Court history, Justice William Howard Taft wrote for the Court that a wiretap was not a "physical entry," and by speaking on a telephone, defendant Olmstead might just as well have been broadcasting to the world.
The Court decided in the case of Olmstead v. United States [1] that tapping a telephone line from outside a residence was not a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Clinton and the anxious nation should heed Justice Louis Brandeis's vindicated dissent in the 1928 case Olmstead v. United States, which restricted privacy for the sake of police efficiency: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.