Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • INTERINO Katz v. United States

    Uploaded by

    Rukmini Dasi Rosemary Guevara
    9 views2 pages
    1. The Government violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights by eavesdropping on his phone conversations in a public telephone booth without a warrant. While the booth was accessible to others, the petitioner occupied it privately and had a reasonable expectation that his conversation was private. 2. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that the Government should have obtained a warrant before conducting electronic surveillance even if the scope of surveillance was narrow. 3. The petitioner exhibited an actual and subjective expectation of privacy in the telephone booth that society would recognize as reasonable.

    Original Description:

    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
    1. The Government violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights by eavesdropping on his phone conversations in a public telephone booth without a warrant. While the booth was accessible to others, the petitioner occupied it privately and had a reasonable expectation that his conversation was private. 2. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that the Government should have obtained a warrant before conducting electronic surveillance even if the scope of surveillance was narrow. 3. The petitioner exhibited an actual and subjective expectation of privacy in the telephone booth that society would recognize as reasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views2 pages

    INTERINO Katz v. United States

    Uploaded by

    Rukmini Dasi Rosemary Guevara
    1. The Government violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights by eavesdropping on his phone conversations in a public telephone booth without a warrant. While the booth was accessible to others, the petitioner occupied it privately and had a reasonable expectation that his conversation was private. 2. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that the Government should have obtained a warrant before conducting electronic surveillance even if the scope of surveillance was narrow. 3. The petitioner exhibited an actual and subjective expectation of privacy in the telephone booth that society would recognize as reasonable.

    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 2

    Katz v.

    United States (HANNA) ISSUE/s: WoN the Fourth Amendment protection against
    December 18, 1967 | MR. JUSTICE STEWART | PRIVACY OF unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a
    COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone – YES

    PETITIONER: Charles KATZ RULING: We decline to adopt this formulation of the issues. In the
    RESPONDENTS: UNITED STATES first place the correct solution of Fourth Amendment problems is not
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/389/347 necessarily promoted by incantation of the phrase 'constitutionally
    protected area.' Secondly, the Fourth Amendment cannot be
    SUMMARY: The petitioner Katz was convicted in the District translated into a general constitutional 'right to privacy.' That
    Court for the Southern District of California under an eight-count Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of
    indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, and often have
    telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston in violation of a nothing to do with privacy at all. Other provisions of the Constitution
    federal statute. At trial the Government was permitted, over the protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion.
    petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner's end of But the protection of a person's general right to privacy—his right to
    telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached be let alone by other people—is, like the protection of his property
    an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States.
    public telephone booth from which he had placed his calls. In
    affirming his conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the RATIO:
    contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of
    the Fourth Amendment, because '(t)here was no physical entrance 1. The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the
    into the area occupied by, (the petitioner).' We granted certiorari in privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using
    order to consider the constitutional questions thus presented. the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and
    seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
    DOCTRINE: The critical fact in this case is that '(o)ne who (a) The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of
    occupies it, (a telephone booth) shuts the door behind him, and pays tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral
    the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume' statements.
    that his conversation is not being intercepted. Ante, at 352. The point (b) Because the Fourth Amendment protects people, rather
    is not that the booth is 'accessible to the public' at other times, ante, than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence
    at 351, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. The
    occupants' expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as "trespass" doctrine of Olmstead v. United States
    reasonable. and Goldman v. United States is no longer controlling.

    FACTS: See summary 2. Although the surveillance in this case may have been so
    narrowly circumscribed that it could constitutionally have
    been authorized in advance, it was not in fact conducted
    pursuant to the warrant procedure which is a constitutional
    precondition of such electronic surveillance.
    3. As the Court's opinion states, 'the Fourth
    Amendment protects people, not places.' The question,
    however, is what protection it affords to those people.
    Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires
    reference to a 'place.' My understanding of the rule that has
    emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold
    requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual
    (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the
    expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as
    'reasonable.' Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a
    place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or
    statements that he exposes to the 'plain view' of outsiders are
    not 'protected' because no intention to keep them to himself
    has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the
    open would not be protected against being overheard, for the
    expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be
    unreasonable.

    You might also like