Katz v. United States

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Katz v. United States
ArgueDate=October 17
ArgueYear=1967
DecideDate=December 18
DecideYear=1967
FullName=Charles Katz v. United States
USVol=389
USPage=347
Citation=88 S. Ct. 507; 19 L. Ed. 2d 576; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2
Prior=Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Subsequent=
Holding=The Court extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.
SCOTUS=1967-1969
Majority=Stewart
JoinMajority=Warren, Fortas
Concurrence=Douglas
JoinConcurrence=Brennan
Concurrence2=Harlan
Concurrence3=White
Dissent=Black
NotParticipating=Marshall
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. IV

"Katz v. United States", 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was a United States Supreme Court decision that extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.

Facts

Charles Katz was convicted in California of illegal gambling. He had used a public pay phone booth in Los Angeles to place bets in Miami and Boston. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI had recorded his conversation via an electronic eavesdropping device attached to the exterior of the phone booth. Katz was convicted based on recordings of his end of the conversations. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals sided with the FBI because there was not a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.

Issue(s) before the Court

* Does the Fourth Amendment protect the private conversations of an individual made in a telephone booth?
* Is a physical intrusion by government officials required to violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, or is a warrant-less electronic tap of the defendant's phone call enough of an act to violate his/her rights?
*Is the government required to obtain a search warrant before executing a wiretap, or is a determination by the federal agents that probable cause exists enough?

Holding

* So long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment.
* The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places. Therefore, the rights of an individual may not be violated, regardless of whether or not there is physical intrusion into any given area.
* A warrant is required before the government can execute a wiretap, and the warrant must be sufficiently limited in scope and duration.

Decision and rationale

In the decision the Supreme Court sided with Katz, holding that the Fourth Amendment protects his right to privacy, wherever he may be. Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment." The thrust of the Court's argument was that the Amendment protects people and not just places. This ruling also extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment to include private conversation in addition to corporal objects.
*"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violate the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."
*"The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."

Justice Harlan's concurrence

In his concurrence, Justice Harlan formulated a two-part test for determining whether police activity constitutes a search. Harlan's test, not the majority's test, is the most common formulation cited by courts. Something is a search within the meaning of the Fourth amendment if (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

Justice Black's dissent

In his dissent, Justice Hugo Black argued that the Fourth Amendment, as a whole, was only meant to protect "things" from physical search and seizure; it was not meant to protect personal privacy. Additionally, Black argued that the modern act of wiretapping was analogous to the act of eavesdropping, which was around even when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Black concluded that if the drafters of the Fourth Amendment had meant for it to protect against eavesdropping they would have included the proper language.

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 389
* "Olmstead v. United States" 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
* "United States v. U.S. District Court" 407 U.S. 297 (1972)

External links

* [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/389/347.html Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com]