Potter Stewart

“ The petitioner was convicted in a New York trial court in 1966 on three counts of conspiracy to extort, attempted extortion, and coercion. The case for the prosecution rested principally on the content of two telephone conversations between the petitioner and one of his coconspirators. Tapes and transcripts of those conversations were introduced at the trial over the petitioner's objection that they had been obtained by an unlawful wiretap. The conviction was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York [1] and by the New York Court of Appeals. [2] We granted certiorari. ”

“ That rule was not modified by Berger v. New York. The Court's discussion of Olmstead in Berger, while recognizing that other cases had negated the statements in Olmstead that conversations are never protected by the Fourth Amendment, cast no doubt uon ' (t) he basis of the (Olmstead) decision'-'that the Constitution did not forbid the obtaining of evidence by wiretapping unless it involved actual unlawful entry into the house.' [7] Furthermore, the Court in Berger found the overbreadth of N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. ”

“ United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, did this Court overrule its prior decisions that the Fourth Amendment encompassed seizures of speech only if the law enforcement officers committed a trespass or at least physically invaded a constitutionally protected area of the speaker. [6] Olmstead v. ”