Olmstead V US - case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Kara Chrispen 8-26-15 CJS 305-01 Olmstead V. United States 277 U.S. 438 (1928) FACTS: There were petitioners that were convicted of violating the National Prohibition Act by unlawfully possessing, transporting and importing intoxicating liquors and maintaining nuisances, and by selling intoxicating liquors in Washington. There was evidence in the records that there was a conspiracy of a large amount of unlawful liquor that was being sold and imported. This involved about fifty people. There was vessels that would transport liquor to British Colombia, to the State of Washington, and the suburban limits of Seattle. Olmstead was the leader and the general manager of the business. The profits were divided one-half to Olmstead, and the remainder to the other eleven. They were in a large office building with three telephones on three different lines. There were telephones in an office of the manager in his own home, at the homes of his associates, and at the other places in the city. There was fixed deliveries of the liquor. One of the chief men was always on duty in the main office to take phone calls. The call numbers of the telephones were given to those known to be likely customers. At times the sales amounted to 200 case of liquor a day. The information that led to the discovery of the conspiracy and its nature and extent was largely obtained by intercepting messages in the telephones of the conspirators by four federal prohibition officers. There was four wires that were inserted along the telephone wires form residence of four of the petitioners and those leading to the chief office. The gathering of evidence continued on for months. Men at the wires heard orders given for liquor by customers and the acceptances. The evidence disclosed the difficulties to which the conspirators were subjected, the reported news of the captured vessels, the arrest of the men and the seizure of the cases of liquor in garages and other places. It showed the dealing by Olmstead, the chief conspirator, with members of the Seattle police, the messages to them which secured the release of arrested members of the conspiracy, and also direct promises to officers of payments as soon as opportunity offered. QUESTION: Was wiretapping to obtain evidence a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment? NO JUSTICE TAFT (Majority) 1. There was no violation of the Fourth Amendment because no material was taken. 2. There was no searching or seizing. The evidence was secured by hearing and that’s all. There was no entry into any of the houses. 3. The telephone was invented to be able to extend the communication from farther distances.

4. The Fourth Amendment cannot be violated unless and search of seizure took place. There was no material or tangible evidence that was seized. JUSTICE HOMLES (Concurring) 1. All criminals should be detected and all available evidence should be used. 2. Wiretapping should not be legal when we pay police officers to gather the evidence. 3. If we excluded the evidence that was obtained by violating the Constitution, then we should exclude evidence obtained by a crime of the officers of the law. JUSTICE BRANDEIS (Dissenting) 1. Someday the courts may be able to reproduce papers without even seeing them due to espionage, or in this case wire-tapping. 2. Wire-tapping is an invasion of a person’s individual security. 3. The Constitution doesn’t protect people from their thoughts, emotions and sensations....