Elliott Riches Katz vs. U.S . 389 U.S.

347 (1967) In February 1956 Charles Katz was observed making phone calls from three public phone booths every day at specific times. In the period of time between February 19th and February 25th,agents of the FBI placed a microphone on the outside of two of the booths and a recorder on top of each. The third was placed out of order. The FBI reviewed the tapes and discovered that Katz was taking bets on college basketball games. He was arrested and charged with transmitting wagering information across state lines. Before trial he moved to have the evidence excluided as it was obtained in violation of his 4th amendment rights. His motion was denied and he was convicted. He appealed and the Court of appeals affirmed the Supreme Court Granted Certiorari. The Issue in this case was whether or not the Fourth Amendmant applies to areas in plain view of public but considered private. The Supreme Court held that the recording device was a violation of his rights and reversed the case. Justice Stewart wrote the opinion of the court. In his opinion he says that Katz states that the area of the telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area and thus a warrant must be obtained before placing recording devices on it. The government said that the telephone booth was in plain site and thus anyone could see him placing the call. The Supreme Court agreed but said that when a person goes inside and shuts the door he is entitled to an expectation of privacy in the content of his calls. Justice Harlan wrote a concurring opinion. He writes, the court concludes that the area is protected but fails to define what the definition of a protected area is. The rule that emerges from this case in my opinion is two-pronged. First is there a subjective expectation of privacy. . For example does the person have an expectation of privacy in their opinion? Second is there an expectation of privacy that the public deems reasonable. Justice Black wrote the dissenting opinion. He writes that, I would agree with the court if I agreed that electronic recording was a search or seizure. I believe that the 4th amendment was meant to protect things not personal privacy. Also the court is changing the law to reflect the opinion of the public at the time which it was not meant to do.