In the 1930 Supreme Court case Hilary Halbert, Jr., et al. v. United States, the appellants were charged with conspiracy to violate Prohibition laws by transporting and selling alcohol in violation of the National Prohibition Act. The main issue was whether wiretapped private telephone conversations could be admitted as evidence in federal court trials. The government had obtained evidence against Halbert through a warrantless wiretap which they sought to use at trial. The Supreme Court ruled that such evidence was admissible because it did not violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures or Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination since neither amendment applied to spoken words but only written ones. This decision expanded law enforcement's ability to gather evidence through electronic surveillance without a warrant until it was later overturned by Katz v. United States (1967), which established that the Fourth Amendment protection extends beyond physical intrusion into an individual’s property.

In the dissenting opinion for Hilary Halbert, Jr., et al. v. United States (1930), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that the defendants' constitutional rights were violated because they did not have a fair trial due to public prejudice and hostility towards them. He believed that it was impossible for the jury to remain impartial given the widespread negative publicity surrounding their case before and during their trial. Furthermore, he disagreed with how evidence from an unrelated crime was used against them in court, arguing this further prejudiced the jury against them. In his view, these factors combined denied them of their right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.