In the 1933 case of Olson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights and valuation under eminent domain laws. The government had taken over privately owned lands in Minnesota for use as an Indian reservation without providing just compensation to its owners, one of whom was Olson. The main issue at hand was how to properly value the seized property - whether it should be based solely on its agricultural worth or if other potential uses (such as mineral extraction) should also be considered. In a unanimous decision, the court held that when determining fair market value for purposes of eminent domain compensation, all factors affecting price including location and potential uses must be accounted for rather than simply considering current usage alone. This ruling established important precedent regarding property rights and set guidelines for future cases involving eminent domain disputes.

In the dissenting opinion for Olson v. United States, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping was in violation of both Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. He contended that wiretapping constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as it involved intrusion into private communications without any prior judicial approval or oversight. Moreover, he asserted that using such unlawfully obtained evidence to secure a conviction violated the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because it coerced him into providing incriminating information about himself without due process of law. In his view, these constitutional protections should apply regardless of whether physical trespass occurred during surveillance activities.