The protection provided under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not extend to using evidence obtained via wiretaps. The Olmstead versus the United States involved the use of wiretap evidence to press criminal charges against Olmstead because of engaging in illegal business activities. Olmstead argued that the method used to gather the evidence infringed his rights provided in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments while the government argued that they were not violated. Under the Fourth Amendment, the constitution protects individuals from searches and seizures that are not reasonable. However, the provision does not offer protection in all seizures and searches. Protection is only for those that are considered unreasonable based on the law. Based on the Fourth Amendment’s meaning of seizure and search, recording conversations using wiretaps is not considered a seizure or a search. Therefore, using a wiretap to gather evidence does not need a warrant. In the Olmstead v. United States case, conversations were taped using a wiretap, but a physical search or seizure was not conducted. Under the Fourth Amendment’s meanings of a search and a seizure, these two terms refer to a physical assessment/examination of an individual’s home, tangible items, and papers. It does not involve conversations. The kind of evidence collected was not material. Also, it did not involve an infringement of the rights of the individuals involved in the case. Although the evidence was collected illegally under the state law because collecting evidence sing wiretaps was illegal based on the Washington State’s laws, it does not make a difference if it was collected through illegal means. Common law rule allows the application of evidence despite the methods or ways used to collect it. However, such evidence cannot be used if a person’s constitutional rights are violated. The case involved the protection of public safety from criminal acts also.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
