Olmstead v US 1928O

7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O

1/14


2/14

1928

In the middle of

Prohibition,

Prohibition= outlaws the

sale of alcoholic beverages

Roy Olmstead + partners

violates the National

Prohibition Act .

Imported and suppliedalcoholic beverages.

Prosecuted, tried and

convictedin Federal Court.


3/14

18th Amendment

Aka Prohibition

Amendment effective

from 1919-1933.

Violated by many citizens

Bootleggers sold illegal

liquor but rarely

prosecuted.

It was hard for the

government to obtain

evidence so they resorted

to wire tapping telephones.

Olmsteads Actions

He appealed the case to

the Supreme Court forviolation of the 4th and

5th Amendment by use

of wiretapped evidence.


4/14

4th Amendment

The Right of The People

to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers,and effects, against

unreasonable searches

and seizures,

shall not be

violated


5/14

5th Amendment

Protects a person

charged with a criminal

offense from being a

witness against himself

or herself.

You cant self

incriminate.

Questions Raised-

Whether either the 4th

or 5th Amendment

prohibits evidence

obtained from telephone

wiretaps?


6/14

The Court Ruled-

6 to 3 against Olmstead.

Olmstead argued thatsince the evidence came

entirely fromwiretapping that itcouldnt be used againsthim. Stating protectionunder the 4th and 5thAmendment. Since itwas unwarranted andself-incriminating.


7/14

If the 4th Amendmentwas not violated thenthe 5thwasnt eitherbecause no one forcedhim to speak over thephone.

Does Wiretapping =Forcible entry ?

If so it couldnt be usedin court.


8/14

Taft held that the 4thAmendment-

shows that the search is

to be of material things the

person, the house, hispapers or his effects. Thedescription of a warrantnecessary to make theproceedings lawful is thatit must specify the place tobe searched and theperson or things to beseized.


9/14

But the Amendment

doesnt forbid what has

happened here because

there was no searching,there was no seizure,

said evidence was only

obtained from listening.

There was no entry.

Telephone lines are not

protected by the 4th

Amendment.

Taft concluded that ifevidence provided from

non ethical sources by

the government was

thrown out than it

would give criminals the

upper hand.


10/14

Justice Louis Brandeis

Disagreed, Decency,

security and liberty

demand that

government officials

shall be subject to the

same rules of conduct

that are commanded of

the citizen.


11/14

This decision lasted

until 1967 (Katz case)

which was overruled on

grounds that a trespasswas unnecessary for a

violation of the 4th

Amendment and it

protected intangiblessuch as a conversation.


12/14

1. Why did the Supreme Court hold that the FourthAmendment did not apply to wiretaps?

The Supreme court stated the 4th Amendment

didnt apply because there was no physicalsearch and seizure just over heardconversations.

2. What did the Court say about the means by

which the evidence is obtained?

If the evidence is important then the method ofobtaining it is unimportant.


13/14

3.Suppose you had broken a law, and the police foundevidence of your crime by breaking into your home.Under the Olmstead ruling, would the evidence beadmissible in trial?

No because there would be need of a warrant.

4. What did Justice Brandeis mean when he said that theend justified the means?

This statement refers to whether obtaining evidencethrough an illegal source makes it okay if you in theend can put a criminal in jail. Is it okay to stoop to thelevel of a criminal to put them in jail?


14/14

5. Do you agree with the Decision of the court?

I do not agree with the decision of the court

but the dissenting opinion because it defeats

the purpose of both the 4th and 5th

amendments if you can legally take some ones

phone conversations and use it against them

with out a warrant , it is an invasion of privacy.

Documents

Olmstead v US 1928O