This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Olmstead v. United States: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Removed redirect to Katz v. United States) Tag: Removed redirect |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | |||
|court=Supreme Court of the United States | |||
|date=June 4, 1928 | |||
|subject=Constitutional Liberties | |||
|appealed_from=9th Circuit | |||
|facts=During the 1920s Prohibition era, several people led by Olmstead were involved in a bootlegging operation to import liquor from Canada. | |||
Without a search warrant, police officers tapped into the telephone wires going into the suspects' homes. (The officers didn't enter the homes of the suspects.) | |||
Over 5 months, the officers gathered evidence using the intercepted phone calls to Olmstead. | |||
|procedural_history=Olmstead and his associates were charged with violating the [[Constitution_of_the_United_States#18th_Amendment_.28Liquor_prohibited_1919.29|18th Amendment]] & related Prohibition laws. | |||
Olmstead moved to suppress the evidence under the [[4th Amendment]]. The defendants were convicted at the federal trial. | |||
|issues=Does interception of a person's private conversations (absent contact with the person's body, house, or personal property) constitute a 4th Amendment search or seizure? | |||
|holding=No. 4th Amendment search or seizure doesn't occurs when officers secretly listen to a conversation so long as the officer has no physical contact with the person's body, house, or personal property. | |||
Equivalently, a phone wiretap doesn't need a search warrant. | |||
|reasons=[[William Taft]] stated that the 4th Amendment right isn't violated by the officer's warrantless wiretapping of their private telephone conversations. | |||
|comments=[[Louis Brandeis]] dissented; he likened the warrantless wiretapping to the un-authorized opening of the defendant's mail. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/olmstead-v-united-states | |||
|source_type=Video summary | |||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/277us438 | |||
|case_text_source=Oyez | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/277/438/ | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | |||
}} | |||
- | - |
Latest revision as of 03:42, July 14, 2023
Olmstead v. United States | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | |
Date decided | June 4, 1928 |
Appealed from | 9th Circuit |
Overturned by | |
Katz v. United States |
Facts
During the 1920s Prohibition era, several people led by Olmstead were involved in a bootlegging operation to import liquor from Canada.
Without a search warrant, police officers tapped into the telephone wires going into the suspects' homes. (The officers didn't enter the homes of the suspects.)
Over 5 months, the officers gathered evidence using the intercepted phone calls to Olmstead.Procedural History
Olmstead and his associates were charged with violating the 18th Amendment & related Prohibition laws.
Olmstead moved to suppress the evidence under the 4th Amendment. The defendants were convicted at the federal trial.Issues
Does interception of a person's private conversations (absent contact with the person's body, house, or personal property) constitute a 4th Amendment search or seizure?
Holding
No. 4th Amendment search or seizure doesn't occurs when officers secretly listen to a conversation so long as the officer has no physical contact with the person's body, house, or personal property.
Equivalently, a phone wiretap doesn't need a search warrant.Reasons
William Taft stated that the 4th Amendment right isn't violated by the officer's warrantless wiretapping of their private telephone conversations.
Comments
Louis Brandeis dissented; he likened the warrantless wiretapping to the un-authorized opening of the defendant's mail.
Case Text Links
-