In the Goldman et al. v. United States case of 1917, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to wiretapping and Fourth Amendment rights. The defendants, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, were convicted for espionage based on evidence obtained through a warrantless wiretap by federal agents who had tapped into a public telephone booth used by them. They appealed their conviction arguing that this constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S Constitution which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without issuance of a warrant backed by probable cause. The Supreme Court upheld their convictions in an 8-1 decision stating that there was no physical intrusion into any space occupied by them such as home or office where they could claim privacy rights; hence it did not constitute as 'search' within terms of Fourth Amendment since conversations overheard outside these areas are not protected from interception under law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Goldman et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should extend to telephone conversations intercepted without a warrant. He contended that such interceptions were akin to opening private letters or entering private premises without proper authorization, thus constituting an invasion of privacy rights protected under the Constitution. The majority's decision allowing evidence obtained through wiretapping was seen as undermining these constitutional protections in his view.