Olmstead vs. United States

277 US 438

Olmstead (like Joseph Kennedy Sr.) ran a huge bootlegging business during Prohibition, employing 50-75 individuals, and delivering vast quantities of Canadian alcohol to American consumers from his headquarters in the State of Washington. His only mistake was that he failed to take into account an ingenious new federal intrusion into the people's privacy, the wiretap, which, in its capacity as a "law enforcement tool" was a relatively new technology at that time. He should not have had to worry, because wiretaps were illegal in Washington State.

Like a group of drunken actors cavorting on a stage, not realizing that an audience had filtered in, Olmstead and company put on a highly entertaining performance for an entire team of federal eavedroppers and stenographers, who, ignoring the Washington statute, proceeded to record 775 pages of telephone liquor deals, and to carry the transcripts thereof into federal court where they obtained a conviction against Olmstead.

His attorneys were apparently incredulous that the wiretap transcripts were admitted, being, as they obviously were, a form of illegal search and seizure, barred by the 4th Amendment. They appealed to the Supreme Court, where, by a slim 5-4 majority, with a most emphatically stated dissenting opinion, the wire-tap was upheld.

Among the dissenting opinions expressed, none was as chilling as that of Justice Louis Brandeis, who stated, most prophetically:

"The progress of science in furnishing the government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping. Ways may some day be developed by which the government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions. 'That places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer,' was said by James Otis of much lesser intrusions than these.'"



Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 at 474

Presumably the majority wanted you to think that a wiretap was perfectly OK because they'd only use it on those "bad guys" who everyone knows are out there, and whom everyone knows "deserve" to have their phones tapped.

You're not one of those "bad guys", are you? Of course not! You have nothing to fear from a wiretap. Or do you?

It's 75 years later, and what do we find? Every phone is tapped now. So you did have something to fear after all. Maybe more attention should have been paid to that dissenting opinion.

Back to Main Article






Volume 14 ThE Magazine Contents


ThE-Magazine is a publication of TGS Services - Hiddenmysteries.org
Please direct all correspondence to
TGS HiddenMysteries, c/o TGS Services,
22241 Pinedale Lane, Frankston, Texas, 75763



All Content © HiddenMysteries - TGS (1998-2005)
HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site

All Rights Reserved

Please send bug reports to the Information .

The articles being presented and published are not necessarily the views and research of TGS. TGS and/or the editors and publishers may or may not agree with the assumptions, the articles, or the conclusions of the authors. Each article is presented to give everyone every possible source to TRUTH available. Discerning TRUTH is the responsibility of each reader.