Olmstead v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1928 · Criminal Procedure

277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Overruled by Katz v. United States (1967)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentWiretappingEvidencetelephone conversationssearch and seizurephysical invasion

Facts

Federal prohibition officers investigating a large liquor conspiracy intercepted telephone conversations by inserting small wires into telephone lines connected to residences of four petitioners and the conspiracy's main office. The insertions were made without trespass on defendants' property, in the basement of an office building and on streets near the houses, and the officers made stenographic notes of conversations over many months. The intercepted calls revealed business transactions and conversations among conspirators, and the government used that evidence at trial. Petitioners were then convicted of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act.

Issue

Does the government's interception and use at trial of private telephone conversations, obtained by wiretapping lines outside the defendants' houses and offices and without physical trespass into those premises, constitute a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

Rule

The Fourth Amendment protects against official searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers, and effects, and is not violated unless there is an official search and seizure of the person, a seizure of papers or tangible material effects, or an actual physical invasion of a house or curtilage for the purpose of making a seizure. Secretly overhearing telephone conversations by tapping wires outside the house or office, without entry or seizure, is therefore not a search or seizure within the Amendment. The Fifth Amendment is not implicated absent compulsion, and the admissibility of evidence is not affected merely because it was obtained unlawfully or unethically unless a constitutional limitation requires exclusion.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Federal agents investigating an illegal gambling ring in Chicago attach a listening device to telephone wires from a utility pole on a public alley behind Leo Marin's apartment building. They never enter Leo's apartment or seize any documents, but they overhear calls arranging bets and testify to the conversations at trial.

Under the majority's rule, is the testimony about the intercepted calls barred by the Fourth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority treated the Fourth Amendment as protecting against official searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers, and tangible effects, or an actual physical invasion of the house or curtilage for the purpose of making a seizure. Secretly overhearing telephone conversations from wires outside the premises, without entry and without taking tangible things, is not a search or seizure within that rule.