Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Katz v. United States

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, not just physical areas. It ruled that the FBI violated Charles Katz's Fourth Amendment rights by attaching an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth he was using without a warrant. While Katz was visible in the phone booth, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone conversations. The Court established that the Fourth Amendment applies when the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Katz v. United States

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    140 views1 page
    The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, not just physical areas. It ruled that the FBI violated Charles Katz's Fourth Amendment rights by attaching an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth he was using without a warrant. While Katz was visible in the phone booth, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone conversations. The Court established that the Fourth Amendment applies when the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Original Description:

    Katz v. United States

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, not just physical areas. It ruled that the FBI violated Charles Katz's Fourth Amendment rights by attaching an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth he was using without a warrant. While Katz was visible in the phone booth, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone conversations. The Court established that the Fourth Amendment applies when the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    140 views1 page

    Katz v. United States

    Uploaded by

    PJA
    The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, not just physical areas. It ruled that the FBI violated Charles Katz's Fourth Amendment rights by attaching an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth he was using without a warrant. While Katz was visible in the phone booth, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone conversations. The Court established that the Fourth Amendment applies when the government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Katz v.

    United States
    389 U.S. 347 (1967)

    Facts:

     Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to
    clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a
    public phone booth used by Katz.

     At trial, the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence
    of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had
    attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone
    booth from which he had placed his calls.

     Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-
    count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to
    Boston and Miami.

     On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as
    evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a
    physical intrusion into the phone booth itself.

    Issue:

    WON the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects telephone conversations conducted in a
    phone booth and secretly recorded from introduction as evidence against a person?

    Held:

    Yes. The Court held that wiretapping violated the privacy of the criminal defendant, Charles Katz,
    privacy that he expected to have once entering a phone booth and closing the door.

    The petitioner strenuously asserted that the phone booth was a constitutionally protected area.
    However, the Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places from unreasonable intrusion.
    Even in a public place, a person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his person.
    Although the petitioner did not seek to hide his self from public view when he entered the telephone
    booth, he did seek to keep out the uninvited ear. He did not relinquish his right to do so simply
    because he went to a place where he could be seen.

    A person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the protection of the Fourth Amendment of
    the Constitution as he assumes that the words he utters into the telephone will not be broadcast to
    the world. Once this is acknowledged, it is clear that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution
    protects persons and not areas from unreasonable searches and seizures.

    The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s telephone
    conversations constituted a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and absent a search
    warrant predicated upon sufficient probable cause, all evidence obtained is inadmissible.

    Justice Black’s Dissent:

    J. Black observed that eavesdropping was an ancient practice that the Framers were certainly
    aware of when they drafted the United States Constitution. Had they wished to prohibit this activity
    under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution they would have added such language that would
    have effectively done so.

    You might also like