Charles Katz Case
Charles Katz v. United States 1967 is a United States Supreme Court case that examined the nature of illegal search and seizure and the right to privacy. This case was argued on October 17, 1967 until its decision date of December 18, 1967. The case was argued under some pretty influential justices; those that include Chief Justice Earl Warren and Thurgood “Mr. Civil Rights” Marshall although he did not vote. This case overturned the previous ruling of Olmstead v. United States back in 1927. This case set a very high precedent in the realms of privacy and immaterial intrusion with technology as a search because phone calls and private phones were becoming part of everyday life. Now the facts of the case are very laid out and clear. Charles
…show more content…
First, does the right to privacy extend to public telephone booths and public places? And secondly, is a physical meddling necessary to establish a search? Since there is a question at hand over constitutional rights the Supreme Court took these matters into their own hands. “The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” (Supreme Court Cases). It is said that the government illegally convicted and charged Katz by using his own conversation as evidence against him. The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of concrete items, but also carries on to the recording of oral statements and conversation and in this case conversation via telephone. The Court voted 7-1 in Katz’s favor with Justice Black in dissent. The government in arguing against Katz, made clear that the phone booth was made partly of glass, leaving Katz visible to the public. The Court rebutted saying that what Katz didn’t seek to disregard that when he stepped in the booth was not the “intruding eye-it was the uninvited ear.” On behalf of the majority, 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." Every detail was extremely important in the case especially the fact that he shut the door in the booth, making private conversation okay in public areas. Justice Douglas and Brennan concurred with the same reasons whereas Justices Harlan and White concurred but with differing
First, does the right to privacy extend to public telephone booths and public places? And secondly, is a physical meddling necessary to establish a search? Since there is a question at hand over constitutional rights the Supreme Court took these matters into their own hands. “The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth, and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” (Supreme Court Cases). It is said that the government illegally convicted and charged Katz by using his own conversation as evidence against him. The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of concrete items, but also carries on to the recording of oral statements and conversation and in this case conversation via telephone. The Court voted 7-1 in Katz’s favor with Justice Black in dissent. The government in arguing against Katz, made clear that the phone booth was made partly of glass, leaving Katz visible to the public. The Court rebutted saying that what Katz didn’t seek to disregard that when he stepped in the booth was not the “intruding eye-it was the uninvited ear.” On behalf of the majority, 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." Every detail was extremely important in the case especially the fact that he shut the door in the booth, making private conversation okay in public areas. Justice Douglas and Brennan concurred with the same reasons whereas Justices Harlan and White concurred but with differing