12-18-67
This is the case which gave us the term "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Katz was convicted of violation of gambling laws based on recordings of phone calls that he made from a public phone booth. FBI agents had recorded these conversations using a device that attached to the outside of the booth (no intrusion into the booth = no search = Fourth Amendment not implicated, no warrant required. According to the reasoning of the day, anyway).
This decision spelled out that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places against unreasonable search and seizure. In a concurring opinion, this decision describes that for invoking the Fourth Amendment "there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"
Katz was convicted of violation of gambling laws based on recordings of phone calls that he made from a public phone booth. FBI agents had recorded these conversations using a device that attached to the outside of the booth (no intrusion into the booth = no search = Fourth Amendment not implicated, no warrant required. According to the reasoning of the day, anyway).
This decision spelled out that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places against unreasonable search and seizure. In a concurring opinion, this decision describes that for invoking the Fourth Amendment "there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"
No comments:
Post a Comment