Charles Katz Case Study

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

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

The NSA program on surveillance began in 2001. This is when Congress authorized government officials to listen in on the phone calls and emails of those individuals suspected of engaging in terrorist activities (via the USA Patriot Act). It is designed to ensure that the intelligence community and law enforcement have the tools they need to track / monitor those suspected

The Court faced the question of whether the search of Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 1928, the United States Supreme Court approved the practice of wiretapping for the police and other government officials, though some states have banned it. (Harris, 2017) Wiretapping is regulated by both the state and federal governments and, if illegal, can be punished by criminal sanctions. When an officer observes unusual conduct which leads to reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, the officer may make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling the officer's suspicions.

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,

test, the exclusionary rule, and pertaining to Berger vs. New York, this case examined whether or not evidence obtained by eavesdropping could be used in court. So back to one of my previous thoughts that even if the founder fathers could not view the challenges that the future would bring their amendments, we as a people, through a number of different circumstances, have come up with new parts to apply to the amendments that keep them pertinent in our modern society. Also aside from the exclusionary rule which helps the citizens if evidence is illegally obtained that it cannot be used against them in court, but in the mid 1980s the good faith exception was first instituted. This was created to help the police force or any force in use of a warrant but held an error outside of their control. In short, this helped if the warrant held a mistake but it was not the policemen’s fault so even if evidence was obtained it can still be used in court even with a flawed warrant.

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

The Mapps v. Ohio Supreme Court case was issued to protect the American’s right of the Fourth Amendment which protects us from unreasonable searches and seizure. It all started on May 23. 1957 in Cleveland, Ohio. Three Cleveland police officers appeared at the appellant’s residence because they believed that a suspect that was wanted for questioning was believed to be hiding out at that particular residence. They believed the suspect had a connection to the recent bombing that happened, also they believe that there was a large amount of paraphernalia hidden at the house. Miss Delraee Mapp and her daughter lived on the second floor of the two story home. After the cops arrived at her house, they knocked down the door and demanded entrance to her house. Miss Mapp then called her lawyer and would not let the cops in

Was it constitutional for the FBI to attach a recording device to the telephone booth without a warrant?

Charles Katz knowingly transmitted gambling information by a public telephone in violation of federal law. The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been monitoring Katz for some time and had placed electronic recording and listening device to the outside of the specific phone booth that Katz used to place his bets. The FBI acted without any search warrant or judicial oversight in regards to the pseudo wiretap/bug as it was not required by precedent (Olmstead v United States).

In the 1928, case of Olmstead v. United States the issue of whether of wiretapping constituted a “search” for purpose of the Fourth Amendment was interpreted. Olmstead was convicted of conspiring to violate the National Prohibition Act based on evidence obtained by tapping his telephone line from a junction box located on the public street (Kanovitz, 2010, p.267). According to the text,

Weeks v. United States (1914) is considered to be a landmark case and the first to address the Fourth Amendment in a Supreme Court setting. On December 21, 1911, police officers in Kansas City, Missouri entered the house of Mr. Fremont Weeks, who was working, using his hidden key. During this warrantless search of the home officers acquired papers, letters, books, and other items. These items were then used in court to prove Mr. Weeks was guilty of sending lottery tickets through the U.S. mail based on the evidence unlawfully collected from his residence. Mr. Weeks then requested that the U.S. Supreme Court review his case. The ruling of this court was reversed, due to the evidence seized during the illegal search. It was noted that this