Name Of The Case: Katz V. The United States. 389 Us 347

1203 Words5 Pages
Name of the Case: Katz v. the United States 389 US 347 (1967) Case History: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court in the Southern District of Florida Facts: Katz was caught transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states because the federal agents put an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth. Based on eavesdropping, Katz was then convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings violated his fourth amendment right to which the Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the…show more content…
So in essence, placing a recorder outside the booth might also be equal to a passenger standing outside the booth. The same way if a stranger happens to hear a part of your conversation doesn’t necessarily mean that his eavesdropping but knowing and intentionally placing yourself or a device in order to hear the conversion of the other, is a step further and this step is the violation of the amendment. Then the petitioner moved on to ask if a public telephone booth should be regarded as constitutionally protected area in relation to having a private area even in a public setting, so that the evidence got from attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a public but yet private booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth most especially when the door is closed during use. The government then responded to the fact that as long as the phone call was done in public, with the public funded phone device then the fourth amendment does not apply or cover places but people and in this instance when a person knowingly exposes their information to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. The question then became whether or not the search and seizure conducted in this case complied with constitutional standards, even though the device used did not penetrate the see through the booth. Although the case was ruled in his favor, there

More about Name Of The Case: Katz V. The United States. 389 Us 347

Get Access