YES. UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES The petitioner strenuously asserted that the phone booth was a FACTS constitutionally protected area. However, the Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places from unreasonable 1. Acting on a suspicion that Charles Katz was transmitting intrusion. Even in a public place, a person may have a gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, reasonable expectation of privacy in his person. Although the Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside petitioner did not seek to hide his self from public view when of a public phone booth used by Katz. he entered the telephone booth, he did seek to keep out the uninvited ear. He did not relinquish his right to do so simply 2. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz because he went to a place where he could be seen. A was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to protection of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as Boston and Miami. he assumes that the words he utters into the telephone will not be broadcast to the world. Once this is acknowledged, it 3. On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the is clear that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The persons and not areas from unreasonable searches and seizures. Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court recording the petitioner’s telephone conversations constituted a granted certiorari. search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and absent a search warrant predicated upon sufficient probable cause, all evidence obtained is inadmissible.
ISSUE
WON the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
protects telephone conversations conducted in a phone booth