Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Lomonsod
    The petitioner was convicted based on evidence of phone calls he made from a public telephone booth to transmit gambling information. He argued this evidence should be suppressed as it was obtained through an unlawful search. The Supreme Court ruled that while in a public phone booth, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation, and the secret recording of his calls without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Lomonsod
    34 views1 page
    The petitioner was convicted based on evidence of phone calls he made from a public telephone booth to transmit gambling information. He argued this evidence should be suppressed as it was obtained through an unlawful search. The Supreme Court ruled that while in a public phone booth, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation, and the secret recording of his calls without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

    Original Title

    2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was convicted based on evidence of phone calls he made from a public telephone booth to transmit gambling information. He argued this evidence should be suppressed as it was obtained through an unlawful search. The Supreme Court ruled that while in a public phone booth, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation, and the secret recording of his calls without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views1 page

    Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Lomonsod
    The petitioner was convicted based on evidence of phone calls he made from a public telephone booth to transmit gambling information. He argued this evidence should be suppressed as it was obtained through an unlawful search. The Supreme Court ruled that while in a public phone booth, the petitioner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation, and the secret recording of his calls without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S.

    347 (1967)

    FACTS:

    The petitioner used a public telephone booth to transmit wagering information from Los
    Angeles to Boston and Miami in violation of federal law. After extensive surveillance, the FBI
    placed a listening device to the top of the telephone booth and recorded the petitioner’s end of
    the telephone conversations which was then used as evidence against him at his trial. The
    petitioner moved to have the evidence suppressed under the Fourth Amendment of the
    Constitution, and that motion was denied. The Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the
    evidence is inadmissible. Certiorari was granted.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects telephone


    conversations conducted in a phone booth and secretly recorded from introduction as evidence
    against a person.

    RULING:

    YES, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects telephone conversations


    conducted in a phone booth and secretly recorded from introduction as evidence against a
    person.

    Justice Potter Stewart filed the majority opinion. The petitioner strenuously asserted that
    the phone booth was a constitutionally protected area. However, the Fourth Amendment protects
    persons and not places from unreasonable intrusion. Even in a public place, a person may have a
    reasonable expectation of privacy in his person. Although the petitioner did not seek to hide his
    self from public view when he entered the telephone booth, he did seek to keep out the uninvited
    ear. He did not relinquish his right to do so simply because he went to a place where he could be
    seen. A person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the protection of the Fourth
    Amendment of the Constitution as he assumes that the words he utters into the telephone will not
    be broadcast to the world. Once this is acknowledged, it is clear that the Fourth Amendment of
    the Constitution protects persons and not areas from unreasonable searches and seizures. The
    Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s telephone
    conversations constituted a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and absent a search
    warrant predicated upon sufficient probable cause, all evidence obtained is inadmissible.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy