In the 1921 case Nicholas v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant could not be convicted for both conspiracy to defraud and actual fraud under the same indictment. The court held that these were separate offenses requiring distinct punishments. In this case, Nicholas was charged with conspiring to defraud insurance companies by setting fire to his property and then filing false claims for damages, as well as actually committing such frauds. He was convicted on both counts but appealed on grounds of double jeopardy - being punished twice for essentially the same crime. The Supreme Court agreed with him and reversed his conviction on one count while upholding it on another.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Nicholas v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping was an infringement upon individual privacy rights protected by the Fourth Amendment. The dissent contended that wiretapping constituted an unreasonable search and seizure, as it involved intrusion into private communications without proper warrant or probable cause. Furthermore, they believed this practice could potentially lead to abuses of power by law enforcement agencies if left unchecked. They also disagreed with the majority's view that conversations were not tangible property and thus not subject to protection under existing laws against unlawful searches and seizures; instead, they maintained that personal conversations should be considered part of one's "effects," which are explicitly protected from unwarranted intrusions under the Fourth Amendment.