In the Goldman v. United States case of 1941, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that wiretapping by federal agents did not violate the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures if it was done without trespassing on a person's property. The case involved Martin Goldman, who had been convicted for conspiracy to defraud based on evidence obtained through a microphone placed in an adjacent apartment by federal agents. He argued this violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure. However, since there was no physical intrusion into Goldman’s premises during surveillance, the court held that there was no violation of his rights under Fourth Amendment protections as they were understood at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Goldman v. United States, Justice Murphy argued that the use of a detectaphone against an individual without their knowledge or consent was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. He believed that this type of surveillance constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, as it intruded upon the privacy and security of individuals in ways they could not anticipate or protect themselves from. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such evidence to be used in court would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging law enforcement agencies to engage in similar invasive practices. In his view, upholding these methods would undermine public trust and confidence in the justice system while also eroding fundamental constitutional protections.