Changes

Federal agents secretly wiretapped phone lines of his office in addition to several residences, documenting incriminating information to convict him. In so doing, however, federal agents violated a Washington law against secret wiretaps.

Federal agents secretly wiretapped phone lines of his office in addition to several residences, documenting incriminating information to convict him. In so doing, however, federal agents violated a Washington law against secret wiretaps.

Olmstead appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the presiding Chief Justice was former President William Howard Taft. Predictably, Chief Justice Taft and three of the Four Horsemen, along with another justice, upheld the conviction.

Olmstead appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the presiding Chief Justice was former President William Howard Taft. Predictably, Chief Justice Taft and three of the Four Horsemen, along with another justice, upheld the conviction. At the time, the court believed a literal reading of the Fourth Amendment, taking into account the framers' intent, required a physical intrusion onto the premises in question and the seizure of material items. A wiretap taking place outside the house, capturing only intangible conversations, could not fit within the literal interpretation of the Fourth Amendment conceived of by the majority.  

Justice Pierce Butler dissented, writing that the wiretap violated the Fourth Amendment. Why? Because "the Fourth Amendment safeguards against all evils that are like and equivalent to those embraced within the ordinary meaning of its words," Justice Butler wrote. Specifically, telephone communications can contain privileged discussions between "physician and patient, lawyer and client, parent and child, husband and wife."

Justice Pierce Butler dissented, finding that because "[t]he direct operation or literal meaning of the words used do not measure the purpose or scope of its provisions" therefore "the Fourth Amendment safeguards against all evils that are ''like and equivalent'' to those embraced within the ordinary meaning of its words." [emphasis added] And, since telephone communications can contain privileged discussions between "physician and patient, lawyer and client, parent and child, husband and wife" they belong to the participants in the same way that papers (specifically mentioned in the Fourth Amendment) might.  

Justice Holmes also dissented, but not because he felt that the Fourth Amendment protected against unlawful wiretaps. In his typically unprincipled style, Justice Holmes said that overturning the conviction was a lesser evil than allowing government officials to violate the law.

Justice Holmes also dissented, but not because he felt that the Fourth Amendment protected against unlawful wiretaps. Using a principle of judicial economy, Justice Holmes did not reach the constitutional issue. His dissent proposed that evidence obtained unlawfully, should be excluded, a view that was echoed in Mapp v. Ohio. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=367&page=643 opinion]

Justice Brandeis's dissent invoked "man's spiritual nature," but the media prefer to quote his statement that the Constitution confers "the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Justice Brandeis provided no authority for his sweeping claim, which seem odd in the context of blatant criminal activity. Do those engaging in crime have a "right to be let alone"? Justice Douglas, in concurring with the pro-abortion decision of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), relied on Brandeis's sweeping assertion; so did Justice Blackmun in writing that there is a constitutional right to homosexual activity in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

Justice Brandeis's dissent invoked "man's spiritual nature," but the media prefer to quote his statement that the Constitution confers "the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Justice Brandeis provided no authority for his sweeping claim, which seem odd in the context of blatant criminal activity. Do those engaging in crime have a "right to be let alone"? Justice Douglas, in concurring with the pro-abortion decision of Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), relied on Brandeis's sweeping assertion; so did Justice Blackmun in writing that there is a constitutional right to homosexual activity in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).