Case Study: US V. Katz

The Government argued the defendants’ Fourth Amendment not violated under the constitutional because the parked vehicle was at a public lot. In some States, the Government has the authority to allow police officers to search a vehicle without the necessity of warrant. “...as long as a state is deciding law based upon its interpretation of its own constitution, the state can be more restrictive than the Supreme Court. However, if the state is interpreting the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, then they must follow the body of law established by the United States Supreme Court”(Policelink). The Government believes the attachment of the monitoring device for search was a responsible forfeiting act. As well as wiretapping the defendants cellular to help them enforce a predominantly well prepared investigation.

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths. In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search

Petitioner, Katz was charged with and convicted of transmitting wagering information by telephone. The Government introduced evidence of the petitioner’s end of telephone conversations at the time of trial. The evidence was obtained by FBI agents. The FBI agents used an electronic device to overhear the petitioner’s phone calls placed inside a public telephone booth. The petitioner argues that the public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area, and any such evidence obtained by using an electronic device violates the occupant’s right to privacy. The petitioner further argues against the assumption that in order for the Fourth Amendment to be violated, a constitutional protected area has to be physically penetrated.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled in Katz v. the United States, to revise the Fourth Amendment “unreasonable searches and seizures,” to cover electronic wiretaps. (Iannacci, 2015) Charles Katz a handicap basketball player conducting illegal gambling bets using three outside telephone booth (pay phones) nearby his residence to place and receive bets from gamblers. The FBI caught onto Katz’s operation, so they decided to bug the telephone booths pending investigation using the wiretaps. Katz was later detained for recorded conversations of conducting an organized illegal gambling operation. Katz defense was that the FBI surveillance on the phone booths was unconstitutional. Katz argued that his Fourth Amendment had been violated because the phone booth was made of glass, leaving him visible to the outside world with an uninvited ear should be protected under the Fourth Amendment because it’s a way of private communication. However, the clause that applies to all

Another case that establishes the premise for determining the validity of the search includes United States v. Matlock. The question before the Court in Matlock was whether the third party's consent for the police to search the defendant's house was "legally sufficient" to render the evidence admissible at trial. Police officers arrested the defendant in his front yard, but did not request his permission to search the house. Instead, some of the police officers approached the house and requested permission to search from Mrs. Graff, who lived in the house with defendant. Mrs. Graff consented to the search and the officers found nearly $5,000 in cash in a closet. Both the district court and the court of appeals excluded the evidence from the trial, finding that Mrs. Graff did not have the authority to consent to the search. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to settle this evidentiary issue. Justice White, for the Court, espoused the

On the date of February 4th, 1965, believing that the Petitioner had been using public pay phones to transmit illegal gambling wagers from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began their surveillance into the life of the Petitioner, Charles Katz. Fifteen days later on February 19th, 1965 FBI agents working the case against the Petitioner had gained access to a phone booth within a set of phone booths that the petitioner frequented on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles, and summarily recorded the petitioner’s side of conversations he was having on the phone within a booth nearby. This surveillance lasted until the 25th (excluding February 22, as no evidence was obtained due to technical difficulties) the date of the petitioner’s arrest, which took place immediately after he exited the same set of phone booths (Brief for Respondent 3). In this case there are two major constitutional questions which need to be addressed: (1) whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the search warrant used by the FBI officers in this case violated the Fourth Amendment to the constitution in that the warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant. While the Petitioner would like the answer to be yes in both cases,

Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1961. The case basically came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment 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?and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.? The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is

Prior to the year 1967, the Fourth Amendment protected “areas” and relied on physical intrusion to define something as a search (Hall, 2015). The case of Katz v. United States came out of California. Katz was using a public, phone booth to place bets in Miami, Florida and Boston, Massachusetts. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

There have significant cases that have had an impact on how the correctional system imposes the fourth amendment in jails and prisons. Hudson v Palmer is a famous Supreme Court case where a prison guard conducted a pat down on Russel Thomas Palmer at an inmate state penitentiary. Palmer has expressed that the officer had conducted the search and seizure as harassment towards him and that there wasn’t an intended reason to be searched at all. It could’ve been true, since correction officers since they have the power and the authority, they do as pleased. Palmer’s attorney claimed that "because searches and seizures to harass are unreasonable, a prisoner has reasonable expectation of privacy not to have his cell, locker, personal effects, person invaded for such a purpose.” He then added that a "shakedown" search (such as was administered by Hudson) was an intentional and unreasonable action by a state officer. Palmer asserted that the officer didn’t have a valuable reason to search his cell and also that he issued a false charge of destroying prison property.Citing findings of the U.S. court of appeals, Palmer 's attorney argued that because

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

I agree with you that the Ex Parte Crow Dog Supreme Court decision of 1833 was to uphold the law that established with the Indian Nation. The U.S government stated that the Indians had the right to rule the affairs in their own land by their own laws. In order to keep that promise, the Supreme Court released the murderer. Considering such indulgence may cause a series of problems, they established the Major Crime Act to regulate some crimes within the Indian territory. To verify the validity of this act, the court adjudicated the U.S v. Kagama case according to the law. Therefore, these affairs had very close connection.

Charles Katz entered a telephone booth, closed the door, and made a telephone call to place an unlawful gambling wager. The FBI suspecting illegal transmission and had unbeknownst to Katz attached a recording device outside the phone booth to ease drop and record his telephone conversation. Katz was convicted on an eight-count indictment based on the recordings captured from the recording box. He challenged his conviction based on his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the FBI. The Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit which upheld the conviction on the grounds that there was no physical intrusion. The Court ruled with Katz stating the FBI had violated his reasonable expectation of privacy.

1. How, if at all, can you distinguish Greber from other instances of payment for professional services? Suppose the percentage Dr. Greber paid to the physicians had not exceeded Medicare’s guideline? Would that payment still amount to prohibited remuneration in this court’s eyes?