Case Citator › Olmstead v. United States

Olmstead v. United States

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
277 U.S. 438
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
141 of 141
Citing cases (total)
141
Treatment dates
1967

Status

Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Olmstead v. United States is overruled in part; all 141 flagged citations have been read. The 2 confirmed adverse treatments are listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

141 later cases cite Olmstead v. United States; 141 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Olmstead v. United States?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in Part

  • The Supreme Court negated Olmstead's conclusion that conversations passing over telephone wires fall outside the Fourth Amendment's protection.

    Berger v. New York · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Statements in the opinion that a conversation passing over a telephone wire cannot be said to come within the Fourth Amendment’s enumeration of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” have been negated by our subsequent cases ... and we so hold.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
  • The Supreme Court rejected Olmstead's remaining rule that electronic surveillance is not a Fourth Amendment search without physical trespass into a protected place.

    Katz v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the “trespass” doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. ... The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth can have no constitutional significance.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Olmstead v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace