In the 1927 case of Olmstead et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on whether wiretapping constituted a violation of an individual's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination respectively. The case involved Roy Olmstead, who was convicted for violating Prohibition laws based on evidence gathered through wiretaps placed without judicial approval or warrants by federal agents. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that neither his Fourth nor Fifth Amendment rights were violated because there had been no physical intrusion into his home or office to install the taps - they were installed in public places outside these premises - hence it did not constitute as search or seizure under Fourth amendment; also since he voluntarily spoke over phone lines knowing others could overhear him (even though he didn't know about specific eavesdropping), it wasn't compelled testimony violating fifth amendment either. This ruling effectively legalized government use of wiretap surveillance until overturned by Katz v United States in 1967.

The dissenting opinion in the Olmstead v. United States case, penned by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the government's use of wiretapped private telephone conversations obtained without a warrant constituted a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He contended that this action overstepped constitutional boundaries set to protect citizens' rights to privacy and against self-incrimination. Brandeis emphasized that as methods of surveillance become more sophisticated, it is crucial for courts to adapt their interpretations of constitutional protections accordingly. The Constitution should not be read narrowly but rather should be interpreted broadly enough to accommodate changing times and circumstances while preserving its fundamental principles. In his view, allowing such unwarranted intrusion would lead down a slippery slope towards governmental abuse of power.