# Olmstead v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 4, 1928 · 277 U.S. 438

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418656

## Case

- **Full name:** OLMSTEAD Et Al. v. UNITED STATES; GREEN Et Al. v. SAME; McINNIS v. SAME
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 4, 1928
- **Citations:** 277 U.S. 438; 66 A.L.R. 376; 48 S. Ct. 564; 72 L. Ed. 944; 1928 U.S. LEXIS 694
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stone
- **Judges:** Stone, Taft, Holmes, Brandéis, Butler
- **Cited by:** 1,733 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
- Negative treatments: 3
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418656

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "the use of evidence of private telephone conversations between the defendants and others, intercepted by means of wire tapping" did not amount to a violation of the Fourth Amendment because "[t]here was no searching. There was no seizure. The evidence was secured…
- holding, in a search and seizure case, that we cannot ignore constitutional commands even if they pose difficulties for law enforcement

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stone,
dissenting.
I concur in the opinions of Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandéis. I agree also with that of Mr. Justice Butler so far as it deals with the merits. The effect of the order granting certiorari was to limit the argument to a single question, but I do not understand that it restrains the Court from a consideration of any question which we find to be presented by the record, for, under Jud. Code, § 240(a), this Court determines a case here on certiorari “with the same power and authority, and with like effect, as if the cause' had been brought [here] by unrestricted writ of error or appeal.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9418656. Public record. Not legal advice.