Week 4 Case study

Article Search

Submitted by: Venkat Vala

Professor: Francis A. Hatstat

Due Date:7th November.

Webster University.
To: Francis A. Hatstat,
From: Venkat Vala
Date: 7/11/2023.
Subject: The Case of Katz v. United States.
Summary:
Petitioner was convicted on the basis of an indictment accusing him of violating 18
U.S.C. 1084 by communicating wagering information by telephone across state lines. Evidence
of the petitioner's end of the talks was produced at the trial, overheard by FBI agents who had
placed an electronic listening and recording device on the outside of the telephone booth from
which the calls were made. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that there was no
Fourth Amendment violation because the petitioner had "no physical entrance into the area
occupied by" him.
Analysis of the article:
On suspicion that Katz was transferring gambling information to clients in other states
over the phone, federal agents installed an eavesdropping device on the outside of a public phone
booth frequented by Katz. Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal
transportation of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami based on
recordings of his end of the discussions. Katz appealed his conviction, claiming that the
recordings could not be used against him as evidence. The Court of Appeals dismissed this
argument, pointing out that there was no physical trespass inside the phone booth itself.
Certiorari was granted by the Court.
First and foremost, invoking the phrase "constitutionally protected area" does not always
result in the correct resolution of Fourth Amendment issues. Second, the Fourth Amendment
does not imply a broad constitutional "right to privacy." That Amendment safeguards individual
privacy against certain types of governmental intrusion, but its safeguards extend deeper and
frequently have nothing to do with privacy at all. Other clauses of the Constitution safeguard
personal privacy against governmental intrusion. However, the protection of a person's general
right to privacy, his right to be left alone by other people, is largely left to the law of the various
States, as is the protection of his property and his very life.
Application:
The concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is fundamental to law and politics,
serving as a guiding principle that protects individual liberty while limiting governmental
interference. It contributes to achieving a balance between the necessity for law enforcement to
ensure public safety and the fundamental right to privacy. This concept governs the legitimacy of
searches, monitoring, and data gathering by determining whether persons have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in specific circumstances. As a result, it maintains the integrity of
democratic societies, ensures due process, and shields individuals from unjustified intrusions into
their personal lives. It is a cornerstone of modern legal and policy frameworks, establishing the
limits of government power and individual autonomy.
Reflection:
The Katz test determines whether or not law enforcement violated a person's
"constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy." This standard has typically been
used to establish whether a search was conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. It
examines whether a person meant to keep information private and whether it has previously been
exposed. Technological advancements, on the other hand, may change which privacy
expectations are "reasonable," throwing the Katz "reasonable expectation of privacy" test into
doubt. As public phone booths and electronic communications became more widespread in
American life, the Supreme Court was forced to decide whether and how to apply a 1791
constitutional provision to modern-day technical advancements. Today, there are still doubts
over when the government can get mobile phone data from cell phone companies and if they can
search a smartphone carrying all of one's personal information.
APA citation and a line:
Warren, D., & Fredrickson, C. (1967). Katz v. United States (1967). The National Constitution
Center. Retrieved November 7, 2023, from
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/katz-v-united-states
Under the Fourth Amendment, it is prohibited to conduct a warrantless search and seizure
anywhere a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy unless certain exceptions apply.