Artwork

Content provided by Andrew and Gina Leahey and Gina Leahey. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Andrew and Gina Leahey and Gina Leahey or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Legal News for Tues 6/4 - Big Law Generative AI Embrace, Epoch Times CFO Indicted, FTX Tax Settlement, J&J $260m Trial Verdict, and Column on Sales Suppression

8:16
 
Share
 

Manage episode 421963899 series 3447570
Content provided by Andrew and Gina Leahey and Gina Leahey. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Andrew and Gina Leahey and Gina Leahey or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.com
This Day in Legal History: Wiretapping Constitutional

On June 4, 1928, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a significant decision in the case of Olmstead v. United States, ruling that wiretapping private telephone conversations without judicial approval was constitutional. The case involved Roy Olmstead, a suspected bootlegger during the Prohibition era, whose phone conversations had been wiretapped by federal agents without a warrant. The evidence obtained was crucial in convicting him. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not extend to wiretapping because the Amendment only protected tangible property and physical intrusion.

Justice Louis Brandeis penned a notable dissent, emphasizing the right to privacy and warning of the potential for abuse and overreach in government surveillance. He argued that the Constitution should adapt to modern technological advancements, including the methods of communication. The decision highlighted a significant tension between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights, a debate that has continued to evolve with advancements in technology.

This ruling stood until 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned it in Katz v. United States, establishing that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, thus extending privacy rights to include electronic communications. The Olmstead decision remains a pivotal moment in legal history, reflecting the complexities of interpreting constitutional protections in the face of new technological realities.

  continue reading

376 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 421963899 series 3447570
Content provided by Andrew and Gina Leahey and Gina Leahey. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Andrew and Gina Leahey and Gina Leahey or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.minimumcomp.com
This Day in Legal History: Wiretapping Constitutional

On June 4, 1928, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a significant decision in the case of Olmstead v. United States, ruling that wiretapping private telephone conversations without judicial approval was constitutional. The case involved Roy Olmstead, a suspected bootlegger during the Prohibition era, whose phone conversations had been wiretapped by federal agents without a warrant. The evidence obtained was crucial in convicting him. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the majority opinion, holding that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures did not extend to wiretapping because the Amendment only protected tangible property and physical intrusion.

Justice Louis Brandeis penned a notable dissent, emphasizing the right to privacy and warning of the potential for abuse and overreach in government surveillance. He argued that the Constitution should adapt to modern technological advancements, including the methods of communication. The decision highlighted a significant tension between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights, a debate that has continued to evolve with advancements in technology.

This ruling stood until 1967, when the Supreme Court overturned it in Katz v. United States, establishing that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, thus extending privacy rights to include electronic communications. The Olmstead decision remains a pivotal moment in legal history, reflecting the complexities of interpreting constitutional protections in the face of new technological realities.

  continue reading

376 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide