MISSION

Maurice Carter
April 26, 2014
Instructor: Thomas Else

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.
In the case of Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Supreme Court held that the warrantless wiretapping of phone lines did not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. According to the Court, physical intrusion (a trespass) into a given area, and not mere voice amplification (the normal result of a wiretap), is required for an action to constitute a Fourth Amendment search. This is known as the "trespass doctrine." Partly in response to this decision, Congress passed the Federal Communications Act of 1933. This Act required, among other things, federal authorities to obtain a warrant before wiretapping private phone lines. In the case of Silverman v. United States (1961), the Supreme Court refined the Olmstead trespass doctrine by holding that an unreasonable search occurs only if a "constitutionally protected area" has been intruded upon, 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.

What is Justice Harlan’s formulation of the privacy test?
I am fairly certain you are referring to Justice Harlan's privacy test in his concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, so I am answering according to that. Justice Harlan's test is the reasonable expectation test, and can be used to determine whether government activity constitutes a search. It asks whether, first, a particular individual has exhibited a subjective, or actual expectation of privacy. This is evaluated on a case by case, individual behavior, and is focused on the actual, subjective belief of the person who was subject to the search. Second, Justice Harlan's test asks whether or not there was an objective expectation of society. This looks at whether or not there is a objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.

Why did the majority of the Court reject the trespass doctrine?

In Katz, the majority rejected the trespass doctrine established in the case Olmstead v. United States, in which the court held that a wiretap was not a search under the Fourth Amendment because there had been no trespass, or physical intrusion into the person's house.

The majority court rejected this in Katz, holding that while the Fourth Amendment did not protect things that a person exposes to the public, what a person attempts to keep private, even in a public area, can be protected under the Fourth Amendment.