Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Wiretapping is one form of electronic eavesdropping and specifically references the monitoring of phone (landline or cellular) conversations by a third party. The term wiretap came about because historically it was an actual electrical tap placed on the physical telephone line that would allow conversations to be overheard. This required the third party to be in the direct vicinity within a restricted radius (typically no more than a few neighborhood blocks away) of the target switchbox for the telephone lines. The act of wiretapping is not restricted to these historic methods because of technological advancements that allow the third party to be in a location far away from the physical vicinity of the target telephone. Conversations using cellular phones can be “tapped into” with aid from the cellular provider following a court order and detailed affidavit. Using triangulation methods of cellular towers, the location of the phone can also be captured. Conversations can be recorded via wiretaps from conventional phones (including phone booths), smartphones, standard cellular phones, and “push-to-talk” phones that use technology similar to two-way radios.

The practice of wiretapping continues to be a polarizing and hotly debated issue in the United States because of the potential for invasions of privacy if misused by the government and its law enforcement entities.

Fourth Amendment Concerns and Established Precedent

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides citizens protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment is intended to limit overzealous behavior by the police by requiring that all warrants for arrests, searches, and seizures be issued by a neutral, detached magistrate upon receiving adequate probable cause that the arrest, search, or seizure is justified. The practice of wiretapping by law enforcement in the United States has called into question many Fourth Amendment concerns. For instance, is a telephone conversation considered private and confidential? Can capturing a conversation be considered a search or seizure?

The U.S. Supreme Court has spent many decades building precedent for the act of wiretapping, beginning in 1928 in Olmstead v. United States. This case occurred during the Prohibition era, and Roy Olmstead was suspected of violating federal alcohol prohibition laws. After capturing incriminating statements in conversations between Olmstead and his lawyer via a wiretap on his phone, Olmstead was convicted. The court ruled that wiretaps were not considered to be searches and seizures for two main reasons. First, the court decided that at no time did the police trespass on the defendant's premises, so no property was “searched.” Second, only conversations were obtained, so no property was tangibly “seized.” Therefore, the actions of the police did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and Olmstead's conviction stood.

However, in 1934 Congress enacted the Communications Act. Section 605 of this act prohibited anyone from intercepting communications and disclosing their contents unless authorized by one of the parties involved. This somewhat limited the use of wiretap evidence in federal court, yet the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) continued to utilize wiretaps, claiming that matters of national security were not prohibited under Section 605.

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court revisited this notion that a search could possibly take place without a physical trespass on a person's property. In 1967, the Supreme Court overturned the Olmstead decision in the landmark case Katz v. United States. The standards for Fourth Amendment protections outlined in Katz remain the precedent today.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading