The Case Of Charles Katz

Charles Katz (petitioner) was convicted under an indictment for transmitting illegal gamble wages by telephone (public pay phone) across state lines (Los Angeles to Boston and Miami) in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1084. The only evidence the FBI had was the calls they recorded with an attached electronic listening and recording device. The case was argued on October 17, 1967 and decided on December 18, 1967. Katz believe the FBI violated his Fourth Amendment and that is why the evidence should be suppressed. The Court of Appeals sided with Katz stating his Fourth Amendment violated.

I. Does the right to privacy apply to telephone booths and other public places?
II. Do a physical intrusion have to be necessary to constitute a search?
III. Does
The court ruled 7-1 in favor of Katz w/ Justice Black in dissent. Justice Marshall did not vote. Justice Stewart wrote, “One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world." (Bender). The wiretaps of the public phone booth used by Katz were deemed illegal, therefore again the evidences were not presented in court.

Justice Harlan’s concurrence—

I. Justice Harlan built on to the foundations of the majority opinion and formatted the “reasonable expectation” test to determine if the government activity constitutes a search.
II. Justice Harlan test, not the majority opinion created that is used as the most common formulation cited by courts.
III. The test was later arranged into a two prong test for determining the existence of privacy; has the individual has exhibited subjective expectation of privacy or is society prepare to recognize that this is objectively reasonable, given the circumstance.

Justice Black’s dissent— I. Justice Hugo Black argued that the Fourth Amendment, as whole was is only meant to protect “things” from physical search and seizure. It was not meant to protect “personal”
Home - Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980). Exceptions—
• If officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946).
• If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985). II. A person Exceptions— * If an officer observes unusual conduct which leads s/he to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

III. Cars Exceptions—
• An officer may conduct a traffic stop if s/he has reasonable suspicions; Berekmer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
• The use of a drug smelling dog to sniff around the exterior of the car, subject to a valid traffic stop; Illinois v. Cabales, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

So, if we have these right to privacy acts within our Fourth of Amendment, we should have the right to privacy inside of a telephone booth public or private.

Not everyone would agree with my opinion. If I was to disagree I would simply disagree because why should he have privacy in a public setting especially when he is doing illegal activities. New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), student bag was search and the Fourth Amendment did not apply to her even though it was her personal bag and expectation of privacy was high but due to her being on public property she lost her right to privacy. She was prosecuted but he was able to get his evidence