Reference no: EM133369551

Case Study: The defendants were convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act. Before any of the persons now charged had been arrested or indicted, the telephones by means of which they habitually communicated with one another and with others had been [ wire] tapped by federal officers. .. . [T]he defendants objected to the admission of the evidence obtained by wiretapping on the ground that the Government's wiretapping constituted an unreasonable search and seizure . . . Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. . . . Whenever a telephone line is tapped, the privacy of the persons at both ends of the line is invaded and all conversations between them upon any subject, and, although proper, confidential and privileged, may be overheard. Moreover, the tapping of one man's telephone line involves the tapping of the telephone of every other person whom he may call or who may call him. As a means of espionage, writs of assistance and general warrants are but puny instruments of tyranny and oppression when compared with wiretapping. -Justice Louis Brandeis, Dissenting Opinion. Olmstead v. United States, 1928

Questions: After reading the scenario, respond to A, B, and C below:

(A) Describe Justice Brandeis's point of view on the government and its infringing on individual liberty.

(B) In the context of this scenario, explain how Justice Brandeis's point of view described in Part A has subsequently enhanced Fourth Amendment protections.

(C) In the context of the scenario, explain how either the executive branch or legislative branch of government could take action to address the justice's concern.