Olmstead v. U.S.

There is literally no other evidence of guilt on the part of some of the defendants except that illegally obtained by these officers.

The defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures," would not be violated, under any ordinary construction of language, by compelling obedience to a subpoena.

We are concerned only with the acts of federal agents whose powers are limited and controlled by the Constitution of the United States."

The Government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf.

Acting on behalf of the Government and in their official capacity, at least six other prohibition agents listened over the tapped wires and reported the messages taken.

The aggregate of the Government evidence occupies 306 pages of the printed record.

Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.

The evidence so obtained constitutes the warp and woof of the Government's case.

It could secure possession of his papers and other articles incident to his private life — a seizure effected, if need be, by breaking and entry.

Protection against such invasion of "the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life" was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language.

It could compel the individual to testify — a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture.

Can it be that the Constitution affords no protection against such invasions of individual security?

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.

Time and again, this Court in giving effect to the principle underlying the Fourth Amendment, has refused to place an unduly literal construction upon it.

Clauses guaranteeing to the individual protection against specific abuses of power, must have a similar capacity of adaptation to a changing world.

Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed.

But "time works changes, brings into existence new conditions and purposes."

Therefore a principle to be vital must be capable of wider application than the mischief which gave it birth.

In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been but of what may be.

In the application of a constitution, therefore, our contemplation cannot be only of what has been but of what may be.

Its general principles would have little value and be converted by precedent into impotent and lifeless formulas.

And if this Court should permit the Government, by means of its officers' crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification.

It could compel the individual to testify — a compulsion effected, if need be, by torture.

As to nearly all the defendants (except those who admitted guilt), the evidence relied upon to secure a conviction consisted mainly of that which these officers had so obtained by violating the state law.

There is, in essence, no difference between the sealed letter and the private telephone message.

Protection against such invasion of "the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life" was provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by specific language.

Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government.

Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet.

The progress of science in furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping.

As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared 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.

They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.

And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement.

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen.

Its common application is in civil actions between private parties.

Independently of the constitutional question, I am of opinion that the judgment should be reversed.

There is, in essence, no difference between the sealed letter and the private telephone message.

Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence of a crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgment.

It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence, — it is the invasion of this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence of Lord Camden's judgment.

Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence of a crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation of that judgment.

It was held that a sealed letter entrusted to the mail is protected by the Amendments.