Katz V. The United States The petitioner Mr. Katz was arrested for illegalgambling, he had been gambling over a public phone.
The FBI attachedan electronic recorder onto the outside of the public phone booth. Thestate courts claimed this to be legal because the recording device was onthe outside of the phone and the FBI never entered the booth. TheSupreme Court Ruled in the favor of Katz. They stated that the FourthAmendment allowed for the protection of a person and not just a person’sproperty against illegal searches.
The Fourth Amendment written in 1791 states, The right of thepeople to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, againstunreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and nowarrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath oraffirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and thepersons or things to be seized (Galloway 214). The court was unsure onweather or not they should consider a public telephone booth as an areaprotected by the fourth amendment. The court did state that: The Fourth Amendment protects people,not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in hisown home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.
Butwhat he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to thepublic, may be constitutionally protected. Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawfulnotwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause, for theConstitution requires that the deliberate impartial judgment of a judicialofficer be interposed between the citizen and the police (Maddex 201). The FBI agents found out the days and times he would use the payphone. The FBI attached a tape recorder to the outside of the telephonebooth. The FBI recorded him using the phone six different times, all sixconversations were around three minutes long. They made sure that theyonly recorded him and not anyone else’s conversations.
Katz lost thecase all the way up to the Supreme Court because the state courts andthe Court of Appeals said there was no amendment violation since therewas “no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner (Hall482). ”The Constitutional Fourth Amendment was looked at and analyzedvery carefully and the Supreme Court decided in favor of Katz with aseven to one vote. Strong arguments were brought to the stand, theGovernments eavesdropping violated the privacy of Katz. “The FourthAmendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends aswell the recording of oral statements (Katzen 1).
” The surveillance in thiscase could have been legal by the constitution, but it was not part of thewarrant issued. Warrants are very valuable to make everything stated in the fourthamendment legal. The telephone booth was made of glass so he wasvisible to the public, but he did not enter the booth so no one could seehim, he entered the booth so no one could hear him. A person in atelephone booth is under protection of the Fourth Amendment, One whooccupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits himto place a call is surly entitled to assume that the words he utters into themouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world. To read the constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role thatthe public telephone has to come to play in private communication(Katzen 2).
But with all this evidence it was still fought that thesurveillance method they used involved no physical penetration into thetelephone booth. The Fourth Amendment was thought to limit onlysearches and seizures of tangible property. The decision of the court was seven to one and Justice Marshalltook no part in the decision of the case. Justice Stewart concurred in hisspeech that, . . .
these considerations do not vanish when the search inquestion is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotelroom to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitledto know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures(Katzen 4). Justice Stewart’s feelings on the case were that the use ofelectronic surveillance should be regulated. He thinks permission shouldbe granted for the use of electronic surveillance. Justice Douglas, withwhom Justice Brennan joined, concurred that “The Fourth Amendmentdraws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests incases of hot pursuit and the arrests on visible or other evidence ofprobable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind ofcrime (Galloway 216).
” Justice Harlan concurred that like a home atelephone booth has its privacy. And the intrusion into a place that isprivate is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Also, warrants are veryimportant in legal procedures of the court and must be followed through. Justice White Concurred, I agree that the official surveillance ofpetitioner’s telephone conversations in a public booth must be subjectedto the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment the particularsurveillance undertaken was unreasonable absent a warrant properlyauthorizing it (Hall 482). Justice Fortas and Justice Douglas concurred together and saidthat the fourth amendment should be revised for todays technology.
Although the right of the fourth amendment has come up allot like theOsborn V. United States case. Now it is time to adjust and start bysaying that the FBI “violated the privacy upon which the petitionerjustifiably relied while using the telephone booth (Levy 1097)”. Justice Black dissented, he could not concur because he could notmake the amendment say what it didn’t know when it was written, “I willnot distort the words of the amendment in order to keep the constitutionup to date (Katzen 15).
” He believes that privacy is that only explained inthe fourth Amendment and no general right is granted, by the amendmentso as to give this court the unlimited power to hold unconstitutionaleverything which affects privacy. . . the framers. . .
did not intend to grant thiscourt such omnipotent lawmaking authority as that. . . for these reasons Irespectfully dissent(Katzen 15). After this case the court made somerequirements for electronic eavesdropping.
Most of them were put in theOmnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. There are strictrequirements for electronic surveillance. Warrants now have to bespecified for the use of electronic devices. BibliographyWorks CitedGalloway, John, (ed. ) The Supreme Court and The Rights of TheAccused. New York: Facts on File, 1973.
Hall, Kermit. The Oxford Companion to The Supreme Court of TheUnited States. New York: Oxford, 1992. Katzen, Sally.
“Katz V. United States”. FedWorld/FLITE SupremeCourt Decisions Homepage. 24 Sep. 1997. Online.
http://www. fedworld. gov. Levy, Leonard, (ed. ) Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.
New York: Macmillan, 1986. Maddex, James, Jr. Constitutional Law: Cases and Comments. St.Paul: West, 1979.Legal Issues
