Olmstead v. United States

1928-06-04

Headline: Wiretaps allowed in Prohibition trial: Court rules intercepted private telephone calls are not constitutional searches and upholds convictions of liquor-smuggling conspirators.

Holding: The Court ruled that government agents’ interception of private telephone conversations by wiretapping did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search or seizure, and it affirmed the convictions based on that intercepted evidence.

Real World Impact:

Allows federal agents to introduce wiretap-recorded calls as evidence in criminal trials.
Affirms convictions in a large Prohibition-era liquor smuggling conspiracy.
Leaves exclusion of intercepted calls to Congress unless constitutional violation shown.

Topics: wiretapping, telephone privacy, search and seizure, criminal evidence, Prohibition enforcement

Summary

Background

A group of people were convicted of running a large scheme to import, store, and sell liquor in violation of the National Prohibition Act. Federal prohibition agents secretly attached small wires to telephone lines serving the conspirators’ offices and homes, listened in for months, and took stenographic notes of many private conversations. The recorded phone traffic formed a substantial part of the government’s evidence at trial.

Reasoning

The Court was asked whether those intercepted telephone conversations amounted to a violation of the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) or the Fifth Amendment (protection against being compelled to testify against oneself). The majority, led by Chief Justice Taft, held that wiretapping did not involve a physical search or seizure of persons, houses, papers, or effects and therefore did not fall within the Fourth Amendment’s literal terms. The Court also said the Fifth Amendment did not apply because defendants were not forced to speak; they talked voluntarily. The majority affirmed the convictions and explained that, in the absence of a constitutional violation or a congressional law barring such evidence, courts should admit relevant evidence even if obtained by means some consider unethical.

Real world impact

The decision allowed federal agents to use wiretapped telephone conversations as trial evidence in these prosecutions and left it to Congress to change that rule if it chose. The Court noted some states criminalize wiretapping, but it held state statutes do not control evidence rules in federal criminal trials. The ruling therefore had immediate effects on law enforcement and on expectations about telephone privacy.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices, including Brandeis, Holmes, Butler, and Stone, dissented or expressed serious concern. They argued that private telephone messages deserve Fourth and Fifth Amendment protection and that using such intercepted calls rewards unethical or criminal investigative methods.