Fourth Amendment: Olmstead v. U.S. and Katz v. U.S. Compared

Introduction: The Fourth Amendment and Its Origins

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Cornell University Law School, N.D.). As with a preponderance of constitutional issues, the meaning of the Fourth Amendment has undergone considerable evolution from its original intent and purpose as set forth by the founders and enshrined in the Bill of Rights. "The framers of the Constitution adopted the amendment in response to the writ of assistance — a type of blanket search warrant — that was used during the American Revolution" (Reed, J., May 24, 2011).

The Supreme Court, in its role as constitutional interpreter, has addressed the scope and boundaries of the Fourth Amendment in a great many opinions, perhaps none more important than two decisions handed down forty years apart: Olmstead v. United States and Katz v. United States.

Olmstead v. United States (1928): A Narrow Reading

The stated language of the Fourth Amendment contains no explicit definition of what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure — only a generalized guarantee of protection against government intrusion. Prior to the Olmstead case in 1928, the Court had not commented substantively on Fourth Amendment matters, with the notable exception of Weeks v. United States, in which "the exclusionary rule was born; the exclusionary rule forbids the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial" (Fourth Amendment Summaries.com, N.D.).

The Court in Olmstead sought to more specifically identify the precise meaning of the reasonableness of search and seizure by government authorities. The case involved "wiretaps of the basement of Olmstead's building — where he maintained an office — and in the streets near his home" (Oyez.org, N.D.), which led the Court to consider whether "the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations violate the recorded party's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights" (Oyez.org, N.D.).

The Court's Reasoning in Olmstead

The Court's decision upholding a lower court conviction of Olmstead on bootlegging charges must be placed in the context of the nation's prohibition of alcohol and the government's attempts to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment. As such, the Court's opinion reflects a perceived need for officers to utilize whatever means were necessary to collect "evidence of a conspiracy to violate the Prohibition Act" (Cornell University Law School, N.D.).

The majority opinion reads the Fourth Amendment narrowly across several key areas. First, the wiretapping of "the basement of a large office building and on public streets" (Cornell University Law School, N.D.) did not constitute "trespass upon any property of the defendants" (Cornell University Law School, N.D.). Here the Court articulated a standard holding that a search is reasonable provided it does not "refer to an actual physical examination of one's person, papers, tangible material effects, or home" (Oyez.org, N.D.). Because none of Olmstead's personal property had been physically intruded upon, no unreasonable search had been committed.

Second, the Court reasoned that wiretapping did not constitute a search because the constitutional protection of "the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not extend to the protection of "their conversations" (Oyez.org, N.D.). Lastly, "the wiretaps did not violate the Fourth Amendment because there had been no physical intrusion" (Law.JRank.org, N.D.) into areas considered constitutionally protected. The exclusionary rule established in Weeks was therefore inapplicable, as no unlawful search had occurred under the Court's property-based framework.