Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). Roy Olmstead was prosecuted by the government with evidence gathered by wiretapping Olmstead’s office phones without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled the evidence could be used as the Fourth Amendment applied only to physical search and seizure. The dissent attacked the decision that the government had the power to wiretap phones without a warrant, citing the opinion that there is no difference between listening to a phone call and reading a sealed letter. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Legal regulation of physical surveillance and transaction surveillance is that, compared to communications surveillance, legal regulation is minimal. This case was a landmark decision on
