This case is very important because it involves our personal privacy. This case is based on the fourth amendment which deals with search and seizure. Phonebooths may not be prevalent now everyday, however, the fact that the government can tap into our conversations that easily is perplexing. All it takes for the government to make such an action is to tap a conversation. The phonebooth is considered public property so it was way easier for the government to obtain the conversation that Katz was having. Nowadays with cell phones, it's easy to tap a conversation, but its hard to get the warrant to do so.
Facts of the Case:
Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami. On appeal, Katz challanged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. The Court granted certiorari.
Question:
Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?
Conclusion:
Yes. The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play. "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," wrote Justice Potter Stewart for the Court. A concurring opinion by John Marshall Harlan introduced the idea of a 'reasonable' expectation of Fourth Amendment protection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment