Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1928

Olmstead v. United States

277 U.S. 438 | 48 S. Ct. 564 | 72 L. Ed. 944 | 1928 U.S. LEXIS 694 | 66 A.L.R. 376

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Olmstead held that warrantless wiretapping without physical trespass was outside the Fourth Amendment, a narrow property-based approach later overturned by Katz v. United States.

Background

Federal prohibition agents investigated a large Seattle-area liquor-smuggling and distribution conspiracy led by Roy Olmstead. Without entering the defendants’ homes or offices and without physically trespassing on their property, agents tapped telephone lines in streets and in the basement of an office building. They listened to and recorded conversations for months, obtaining extensive evidence of the conspiracy.

Olmstead and other defendants were convicted in federal district court of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari principally to decide whether admitting the intercepted telephone conversations violated the Fourth or Fifth Amendments.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether federal officers’ warrantless interception of telephone conversations, accomplished without a physical trespass into the defendants’ premises, was an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding

No. The wiretapping was not a search or seizure within the Fourth Amendment as it was then understood.

Reasoning

The Fourth Amendment protects persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Its text, including its warrant requirement, addresses searches for and seizures of tangible things. Here, the officers neither entered the defendants’ homes or offices nor took possession of papers, effects, or other tangible property.

The agents obtained the evidence through hearing voluntarily spoken conversations carried over telephone wires outside the defendants’ premises. The Court treated the wires beyond a home or office as no more part of that protected place than the public highways along which the wires ran. In the Court’s view, listening to projected voices was not a constitutional search or seizure.

The Court distinguished decisions excluding evidence obtained through physical invasions or takings, including Weeks, Silverthorne, Amos, and Gouled. Those cases involved an official intrusion into protected premises, the taking of papers or effects, or their equivalent. The Court refused to extend Gouled’s rule beyond its particular facts.

The Court also rejected the analogy to sealed mail. A sealed letter is a tangible paper or effect held within a government-regulated postal system that protects its confidentiality. Telephone communications, by contrast, were spoken messages transmitted over wires outside the speaker’s premises; the Constitution did not expressly make those conversations protected objects of a search or seizure.

Issue #2

Whether admission of the intercepted conversations compelled the defendants to be witnesses against themselves in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Holding

No. Because the defendants spoke voluntarily and the wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment did not bar the evidence.

Reasoning

The defendants were not forced to make statements or otherwise compelled to communicate. They voluntarily conducted their business over the telephone, unaware that agents were listening.

The Court regarded the Fifth Amendment claim as dependent on a prior Fourth Amendment violation. Since the interception was not a constitutionally prohibited search or seizure, the use of the overheard conversations did not amount to compelled self-incrimination.

Issue #3

Whether federal courts should exclude the wiretap evidence because the officers acted unethically or violated a Washington statute making interception of telephone messages a misdemeanor.

Holding

No. Absent a constitutional violation or an Act of Congress requiring exclusion, the common-law rule permitted admission of relevant evidence regardless of how it was obtained.

Reasoning

At common law, relevant evidence was generally admissible even if unlawfully obtained. Weeks created a constitutional exception requiring exclusion when federal officials secured evidence through violations of the Fourth or Fifth Amendments, but the Court declined to create an additional judicial exception for evidence obtained by unethical conduct.

The Washington wiretap statute made interception a misdemeanor but did not itself provide that evidence obtained through interception was inadmissible. The Court held that a state statute enacted after Washington entered the Union could not prescribe evidentiary rules for federal criminal prosecutions.

Congress could enact a federal rule protecting the secrecy of telephone communications and excluding unlawfully intercepted messages. But the Court concluded that such a policy choice belonged to Congress, not to the federal judiciary through an expanded reading of the Fourth Amendment or a general supervisory exclusionary rule.

Dissents

Justice Holmes

Reasoning

Justice Holmes did not commit himself to the view that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments themselves covered the wiretap, but he would have excluded the evidence on a different ground. In his view, a government should not obtain or use evidence that its officers could obtain only by committing a crime.

He framed the case as a choice between two undesirable outcomes: allowing some criminals to escape or allowing the Government to foster criminal conduct by its own agents. Holmes concluded that the latter was the greater evil, because a government that knowingly uses and rewards the fruits of official illegality makes its condemnation of that illegality meaningless.

For Holmes, it did not matter that Washington, rather than federal law, made wiretapping criminal. The federal government was using its officers to commit an offense against state law in order to prosecute defendants in federal court, and a federal judge should not permit that misconduct to achieve its intended result.

Justice Brandeis

Reasoning

Justice Brandeis read the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as protections for privacy rather than as protections limited to physical places and tangible objects. The Constitution, he argued, must adapt to new methods of governmental intrusion; otherwise technological advances would permit the Government to invade private life in ways more penetrating than the abuses that prompted the Bill of Rights.

A telephone conversation deserved the same constitutional protection as a sealed letter. Both are private communications transmitted through a public service, and wiretapping intrudes not only on the person whose line is tapped but also on every person who calls or is called. The fact that a spoken message is intangible did not make the privacy invasion less real.

Drawing on Boyd and related cases, Brandeis maintained that the Fourth Amendment reaches every unjustified governmental intrusion on the privacy of the individual, whatever means are used. The Fifth Amendment likewise forbids the Government from using in a criminal case information it acquired through such an intrusion. The location of the physical tap outside the defendants’ premises was therefore immaterial.

Brandeis would also have reversed on nonconstitutional grounds. Washington made wiretapping a crime, and federal officers committed that crime on the Government’s behalf to build the prosecution’s case. A court should not allow the Government to profit from its own wrongdoing, because official lawbreaking undermines public respect for law and contaminates the judicial process.

Justice Butler

Reasoning

Justice Butler would have treated wiretapping as a search for evidence within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Telephone users possess an exclusive right to use the line during a call, and tapping the line to listen and record interferes with that private communication.

He relied on the Court’s established practice of reading constitutional protections for personal rights liberally and in light of their underlying purpose. Just as Boyd did not confine the Fourth Amendment to a literal physical search, Butler would not confine it to tangible intrusions when the Government had invaded private communications to obtain evidence.

Butler did not address the separate question concerning the officers’ unethical conduct or violation of state law because the order granting certiorari had limited argument to the constitutional issue. On the Fourth Amendment question alone, he would have granted a new trial.

Justice Stone

Reasoning

Justice Stone joined the views expressed by Justices Holmes and Brandeis and agreed with Justice Butler’s analysis of the constitutional merits. He therefore would have rejected the convictions because the Government’s wiretapping violated constitutional privacy protections and because the Government should not use evidence obtained by its officers’ criminal conduct.

Stone additionally disagreed with the suggestion that the Court’s certiorari order prevented it from considering the state-law and judicial-integrity issues. Under the statute governing certiorari, he reasoned, the Court retained the same authority to decide questions presented by the record as it would have had on an unrestricted appeal.