olmstead v us 1928o
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
1/14
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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?
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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?
-
7/30/2019 Olmstead v US 1928O
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.