Charles Katz Case Analysis

As one of the most frequently cited cases in American law, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Katz v. United States continues to enormously impact Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan’s concurring opinion is perhaps the most widely remembered excerpt from the high court’s significant opinion. As the semi-centennial anniversary of the Katz decision approaches, this article celebrates the forward-thinking approach that Justice Harlan so giftedly annunciated in his concurrence.
Mentioned in virtually every criminal procedure casebook, the Katz decision is a jewel of criminal procedure that is studied year after year by law students across the country. An unaccustomed reader might assume that the facts of the case sprouted from a highbrowed spinoff of a 1950s mob film plot. Charles Katz was a well know sports handicapper from Los Angeles, California. As was his daily routine, Katz would wander from his apartment on the famous Sunset Boulevard to visit one of three nearby telephone booths, where he would place wagering calls to Miami and Boston. Although a chic way to make a living, Katz’s gambling antics ran afoul of the Federal Wire Act. Without a warrant, federal authorities recorded Katz’s illicit conversations using an electronic
Ciraolo is another landmark case that displays the fingerprints of Justice Harlan’s concurrence. In that case, police flew a private over the respondent’s backyard to confirm the presence of marijuana plants that were protected by two fences. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote for a sharply divided 5–4 majority, holding the aerial observation in that case did not constitute a search because it was “unreasonable for [the] respondent to expect that his marijuana plants were constitutionally protected from being observed with the naked eye from an altitude of 1,000