Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Doctrine: The Fourth Amendment Protects People, Not Places Topic: Search and Seizure Sub-Topic: Meaning of "Search"

    Uploaded by

    Gucci Guy
    36 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that the police must obtain a warrant to wiretap a public phone booth. While Katz did not hide in the phone booth, he expected privacy in his conversations. Just because conversations occur in public does not mean one loses an expectation of privacy. The Court determined that wiretapping the phone booth constituted an unreasonable search and seizure since no warrant was obtained.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Katz v US 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that the police must obtain a warrant to wiretap a public phone booth. While Katz did not hide in the phone booth, he expected privacy in his conversations. Just because conversations occur in public does not mean one loses an expectation of privacy. The Court determined that wiretapping the phone booth constituted an unreasonable search and seizure since no warrant was obtained.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Doctrine: The Fourth Amendment Protects People, Not Places Topic: Search and Seizure Sub-Topic: Meaning of "Search"

    Uploaded by

    Gucci Guy
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that the police must obtain a warrant to wiretap a public phone booth. While Katz did not hide in the phone booth, he expected privacy in his conversations. Just because conversations occur in public does not mean one loses an expectation of privacy. The Court determined that wiretapping the phone booth constituted an unreasonable search and seizure since no warrant was obtained.

    Copyright:

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

    Doctrine: The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places

    Topic: Search and Seizure


    Sub-Topic: Meaning of "search"
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    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. 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. The Court granted certiorari.

    Issue:
    Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police
    to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

    Ruling:
    Yes.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
    searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
    or things to be seized. Indeed, the Court have expressly held that the Fourth Amendment governs not
    only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral statements, overheard
    without any "technical trespass under . . . local property law."

    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.

    You might also like