Katz v US
I. Katz v. U.S. 347 (1967)
II. Procedural History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
III. Facts: The petitioner, Charles Katz, was charged with conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law. In order to collect evidence against Katz, federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap on the public phone booth that he used to conduct these operations. The agents listened only to Katz's conversations, and only to the parts of his conversations dealing with illegal gambling transactions. At his trial, Katz sought to exclude any evidence connected with these wiretaps, arguing that the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth constitutes an unreasonable search of a "constitutionally protected area" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The federal agents countered by saying that a public phone booth was not a "constitutionally protected area," therefore, they could place a wiretap on it without a warrant.
IV. Issue: Does the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth violate the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Answer: Yes
V. Arguments for both sides:
Defendant: The 4th Amendment requires that a warrant be issued stating the probable cause for a search and names of the persons or things to be seized. In bugging the phone booth, the FBI used none of these guidelines. Moreover, a phone booth, although public, becomes private when a person uses it for confidential conversations.
Government: The 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" conducted without a warrant. In this case, no tangible property was searched or seized, so the 4th Amendment does not apply. A telephone booth is a public place and Katz made no effort to make it private.
VI. Court
II. Procedural History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
III. Facts: The petitioner, Charles Katz, was charged with conducting illegal gambling operations across state lines in violation of federal law. In order to collect evidence against Katz, federal agents placed a warrantless wiretap on the public phone booth that he used to conduct these operations. The agents listened only to Katz's conversations, and only to the parts of his conversations dealing with illegal gambling transactions. At his trial, Katz sought to exclude any evidence connected with these wiretaps, arguing that the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth constitutes an unreasonable search of a "constitutionally protected area" in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The federal agents countered by saying that a public phone booth was not a "constitutionally protected area," therefore, they could place a wiretap on it without a warrant.
IV. Issue: Does the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth violate the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Answer: Yes
V. Arguments for both sides:
Defendant: The 4th Amendment requires that a warrant be issued stating the probable cause for a search and names of the persons or things to be seized. In bugging the phone booth, the FBI used none of these guidelines. Moreover, a phone booth, although public, becomes private when a person uses it for confidential conversations.
Government: The 4th Amendment protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" conducted without a warrant. In this case, no tangible property was searched or seized, so the 4th Amendment does not apply. A telephone booth is a public place and Katz made no effort to make it private.
VI. Court