Enterpreting the 4th Amendment: Olmsted & Katz

In the case of Olmsted v. United States, Mr Ralph Olmsted's claims for invasion of privacy by investigating officials were deemed to in no way violate his 4th Amendment rights. Only 39 years later in a fundamentally similar case, Katz v. United States, the supreme court ruled that 4th Amendment rights were indeed violated by F.B.I. detectives.

I decided to dig into the reasons behind such an obvious philosophical inconsistency in our highest office of law.

It appeared that the discrepancy was in the abstract interpretations of "unreasonable search and seizure" delegated by the 4th Amendment.

Olmsted v United States

Ralph Olmsted was tried for running alcohol during Prohibition on evidence gathered though electronic wiretapping of his home and office.

In an article discussing the Olmsted case here, the courts declared:

"The amendment itself shows that the search is to be of material things - the person, the house, his papers or his effects. The amendment does not forbid what was done here for there was no seizure. The evidence was secured by the sense of hearing and that only. There was not entry of the houses. The language of the amendment cannot be extended and expanded. Since the evidence was a conversation and no entry was made into Olmstead's home, there was therefore no violation of his rights against unreasonable search and seizure."

Simply put, the court concluded that search and seizure of physical things such has his person, house, papers, and effects constituted a violation of the 4^th amendment. Since they regarded the data recordings of fluctuations in air pressure coming from the mouth of Mr. Olmsted to be not physical in nature, the incriminating phone calls made by Olmsted were admissible, and did not violate his 4^th Amendment rights to “unreasonable search and seizure.”

Katz v. United States

39 years later “unreasonable search and seizure” was to be defined fundamentally contrary to the previous Supreme Court assessment. In the case Katz v. United States the defendant declared a violation in his 4^th Amendment rights and was acquitted on grounds that:

“The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements.”

and;

“Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.”

The previous quotes came from Cornell Law School here. As the succession of court rulings has shown, the Supreme Court has elaborated the meaning of the 4^th Amendment in their rulings of search and seizure to include intangible items. The courts also interpreted the 4^th Amendment in that because it “protects people,” the “presence or absence of a physical intrusion” is irrelevant in determining a violation of the amendment.

Interestingly, dissenting Justice Black argued that “the decision rendered by the Katz Court effectively amounts to a revision of the Fourth Amendment.” He brought fourth an ideological disagreement about interpreting v. elaborating constitutional amendments. Although I agree that rules should be interpreted within the confines of their corresponding literature, I disagree with Justice Black’s assessment about the magnitude of interpretation put forth by the court ruling. I think to look at the 4^th Amendment solely in terms of blunt objects is a misapplication and misinterpretation of privacy implied by our Bill of Rights in light of technological advances made in the twenty-first century. (qtd from here).