277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928)
The petitioners, including Roy Olmstead as the leading figure, were convicted in the District Court for the Western District of Washington of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act by importing, transporting, possessing, and selling intoxicating liquors.1 The evidence against them was gathered by four federal prohibition officers who intercepted messages on the petitioners' telephones over many months by attaching wires in the basement of their office building and in nearby streets without any trespass on the defendants' property.2 The operation involved a large organization with multiple offices, vessels for importation from British Columbia, storage caches, and dozens of employees, generating sales up to $176,000 in a single month.3
The defendants moved to suppress the wiretap evidence before trial, but the district court overruled the objection and admitted the testimony of the officers regarding the intercepted conversations along with other evidence.4 The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions in 1927.5
The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the issue of whether the wiretapping evidence violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.6
Whether the interception by federal officers of private telephone conversations through wire tapping violated the Fourth Amendment?7
The Fourth Amendment protects the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.8 It requires warrants particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.9 Its text and purpose are limited to tangible material things and demand an actual physical invasion of protected spaces.10
No. The established facts show that Roy Olmstead and associates maintained a large conspiracy with headquarters in Seattle, multiple offices and telephones, vessels importing liquor from British Columbia, storage caches, and dozens of employees generating sales up to $176,000 in a single month.11 Four federal prohibition officers intercepted the telephone messages by inserting small wires along the ordinary lines in the basement of the office building and in the streets near the houses without any trespass upon the defendants' property.12 The messages were spoken into the telephones and intercepted while in the air by electrical devices, producing stenographic notes of conversations that revealed orders, deliveries, and dealings with police. Because the officers never entered the houses or offices and never seized any tangible papers or effects, the interception did not amount to a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.13
The interception by wire tapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment.14
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brandeis dissented on the ground that the makers of the Constitution conferred the right to be let alone, the most comprehensive of rights.17 He explained that every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.18 Justice Brandeis added that wire tapping invades the privacy of the home and office in a manner far greater than tampering with the mails.19
He further dissented on the ground that the use as evidence in a criminal proceeding of facts ascertained by an intrusion upon privacy must be deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment.20 This follows because the makers of the Constitution sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, thoughts, emotions, and sensations by conferring the right to be let alone.21
Justice Butler dissented because the single question presented is whether the Government may consistently with the Fourth Amendment have its officers tap wires, listen to, take down and report the private messages and conversations transmitted by telephones.22 He maintained that the Fourth Amendment safeguards against all evils that are like and equivalent to those embraced within the ordinary meaning of its words.23 When the facts in these cases are truly estimated, a fair application of that principle decides the constitutional question in favor of the petitioners.24
With great deference, he thought they should be given a new trial.25
Whether the use at trial of evidence obtained through such wire tapping violated the Fifth Amendment?28
No. The established facts show that the petitioners were continually and voluntarily transacting business over their many telephones without knowledge of the interception.31 There was no evidence of compulsion to induce them to talk.32 Because the Fourth Amendment was not violated there is no room for applying the Fifth Amendment.33 The use of the overheard conversations at trial therefore did not compel the defendants to be witnesses against themselves.34
The use at trial of the wiretap evidence did not violate the Fifth Amendment.35
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Brandeis dissented on the ground that the use as evidence in a criminal proceeding of facts ascertained by an intrusion upon privacy must be deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendment.36 He explained that the makers of the Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.37 They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect.38
They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations by conferring the right to be let alone.39
Whether evidence obtained by wire tapping that violated state criminal law was admissible in a federal criminal trial?40
The common law rule that the admissibility of evidence is not affected by the illegality of the means by which it was obtained remains the law in federal courts unless Congress provides otherwise by statute.41 A state statute making wire tapping a crime does not control the rules of evidence in federal criminal trials.42
Yes. The established facts show that the wire tapping violated the Washington statute making it a gross misdemeanor to intercept a telephone message without consent.43 Yet the common law rule of admissibility applied because no federal constitutional violation occurred and Congress had not enacted legislation excluding such evidence.44 The state statute passed after Washington's admission to the Union cannot affect the rules of evidence applicable in courts of the United States in criminal cases.45
Evidence obtained by wire tapping that violated state criminal law was admissible in the federal criminal trial.46
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Holmes dissented on the ground that if the existing code does not permit district attorneys to have a hand in such dirty business it does not permit the judge to allow such iniquities to succeed.47 He reasoned that the reason for excluding evidence obtained by violating the Constitution logically leads to excluding evidence obtained by a crime of the officers of the law even when the crime is defined by state rather than federal statute.48