OLMSTEAD V. UNITED STATES. In 1928, fifty years following the invention of the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell, in Olmstead v. United States, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit federal prohibition officials from eavesdropping on telephone conversations taking place in the defendants’ homes and offices by 30 The Olmstead majority reasoned that because the federal agents had placed the wiretaps on the outside they had not engaged in a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment requiring the issuance of a warrant: “The intervening wires are not part of his house or office any more than are the highways along which they are stretched.”31 Therefore, the majority affirmed the conspiracy convictions under the National Prohibition Act, that were based on the eavesdropping 32 remembered for the vigorous dissent authored by Justice Louis D. 29 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 541 (2001) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting). In that same year, Justice Scalia observed that “[i]t would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens by the Fourth Amendment has been entirely unaffected by the advance of technology.” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33-34 (2001). 30 Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). 31 Id. at 465. 32 Id. at 469.