Katz v. United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Katz v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued October 17, 1967
Decided December 18, 1967


Full case name:	Charles Katz v. United States

Citations:	389 U.S. 347; 88 S. Ct. 507; 19 L. Ed. 2d 576; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2

Prior history:	Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Holding

The Court extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.

Court membership

Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall

Case opinions

Majority by: Stewart
Joined by: Warren, Fortas
Concurrence by: Douglas
Joined by: Brennan
Concurrence by: Harlan
Concurrence by: White
Dissent by: Black
Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Laws applied

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 searches and seizures to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant.

1 Facts
- 1.1 Issue(s) before the Court
2 Holding
3 Decision and rationale
4 Justice Harlan's concurrence
5 Justice Black's dissent
6 See also
7 External links

[edit] 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 him, the FBI had attached an electronic eavesdropping device to the phone which recorded the conversation. 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.

[edit] 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 an unwarranted electronic tap on the defendant's phone 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?

[edit] 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 cannot 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.

[edit] 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."

[edit] 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 "ha[s] exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.

[edit] 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.