Katz V. The United States

The petitioner Mr. Katz was arrested for illegal gambling, he had been gambling

over a public phone. The FBI attached an electronic recorder onto the outside of the

public phone booth. The state courts claimed this to be legal because the recording device

was on the outside of the phone and the FBI never entered the booth. The Supreme Court

Ruled in the favor of Katz. They stated that the Fourth Amendment allowed for the

protection of a person and not just a person?s property against illegal searches. The Fourth

Amendment written in 1791 states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and

effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or

affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized (Galloway 214).

The court was unsure on weather or not they should consider a public telephone booth as

an area protected 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 his own home or office, is not a

subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as

private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally

protected...Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful

notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause, for the

Constitution requires that the deliberate impartial judgment of a judicial

officer be interposed between the citizen and the police (Maddex 201).

The FBI agents found out the days and times he would use the pay phone. The

FBI attached a tape recorder to the outside of the telephone booth. The FBI recorded him

using the phone six different times, all six conversations were around three minutes long.

They made sure that they only recorded him and not anyone else?s conversations. Katz

lost the case all the way up to the Supreme Court because the state courts and the Court

of Appeals said there was no amendment violation since there was ?no physical entrance

into the area occupied by the petitioner (Hall 482).? The Constitutional Fourth

Amendment was looked at and analyzed very carefully and the Surpreme Court decided in

favor of Katz with a seven to one vote. Strong arguments were brought to the stand, the

Governments eavesdropping violated the privacy of Katz. ?The Fourth Amendment

governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as well the recording of oral

statements (Katzen 1).? The surveillance in this case could have been legal by the

constitution, but it was not part of the warrant issued. Warrants are very valuable to make

everything stated in the fourth amendment legal. The telephone booth was made of glass

so he was visible to the public, but he did not enter the booth so no one could see him, he

entered the booth so no one could hear him. A person in a telephone booth is under

protection of the Fourth Amendment,

One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that

permits him to place a call is surly entitled to assume that the words he

utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world. To read

the constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public

telephone has to come to play in private communication (Katzen 2).

But with all this evidence it was still fought that the surveillance method they used

involved no physical penetration into the telephone booth. The Fourth Amendment was

thought to limit only searches and seizures of tangible property.

The decision of the court was seven to one and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part

in the decision of the case. Mr. Justice Stewart concurred in his speech that,

...these considerations do not vanish when the search in question is

transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of

a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he

will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures (Katzen 4).

Mr. Justice Stewart?s feelings on the case were that the use of electronic surveillance

should be regulated. He thinks permission should be granted for the use of electronic

surveillance. Mr. Justice Douglas, with whom Mr. Justice Brennan joined, concurred that

?The Fourth Amendment draws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests

in cases of hot pursuit and the arrests on visible or other evidence of probable cause cut

across the board and are not peculiar to any kind of crime (Galloway 216).? Mr. Justice