Katz v. United States
| Katz v. United States | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued October 17, 1967 Decided December 18, 1967 |
|
| Full case name | Charles Katz v. United States |
| Citations | 389 U.S. 347 (more)
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 search and seizure to protect individuals with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, White, Fortas |
| Concurrence | Douglas, joined by Brennan |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
| Concurrence | White |
| Dissent | Black |
| Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
|
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
|
|
| Olmstead v. United States (1928) | |
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search". The Court's ruling refined previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling Olmstead v. United States and Goldman v. United States. Katz also extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
Charles Katz used a public pay phone booth to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI was recording his conversations via an electronic eavesdropping device attached to the exterior of the phone booth. Katz was convicted based on these recordings. He challenged his conviction, arguing that the recordings were obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals sided with the FBI because there was no physical intrusion into the phone booth itself.
The Court ruled 7–1 in favor of Katz, with Justice Black in dissent. Justice Marshall did not participate in the vote. Writing for the majority, Justice Stewart wrote, "One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world." Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determine if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversations can be made in public areas.
...
Wikipedia