Charles Katz was convicted in the Southern California District Court that charged him with wagering gambling information. The Appellate Court rejected the defendants’ disagreement because they concluded that Katzs’ Fourth Amendment right was not infringed upon because FBI agents never actually entered the telephone booth.
Facts: Mr. Katz was seen placing calls between three different telephone booths on a daily basis which lead the FBI to place microphones on the outer roof of two of the three telephone booths. One of the telephone booths was out of order. This allowed the agents to intercept and record the phone calls he made regarding gambling information. An FBI agent later rented a hotel room next door to Mr. Katz and listened to his phone …show more content…
Katz placed his calls in was made of glass, he sought to exclude the uninvited ear. Since there was no physical penetration from the technique they used to listen to the calls, the Government argues the agents’ doings should not be tested by the Fourth Amendment. The court referred back to the Olmstead case, which they have withdrew from the narrow view on which decided the outcome of the case, and have conveyed that the Fourth Amendment extends to the recording of oral conversations that are overheard without any “technical trespass under… local property law.” The action of listening to and recording the phone call violated the privacy that the petitioner expected.
Dissenting: Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting. Justice Black begins his statement explaining that if eavesdropping assisted by an electronic device constitutes a search or seizure, then he would join the rest of the court’s opinion. Black made clear that although wiretapping telephone lines was an unknown possibility when the Framers were writing the Bill of Rights, eavesdropping is, in simple terms, an ancient practice. If the Framers wanted to protect from eavesdropping, they would have put clear words in the Bill of
Facts: Mr. Katz was seen placing calls between three different telephone booths on a daily basis which lead the FBI to place microphones on the outer roof of two of the three telephone booths. One of the telephone booths was out of order. This allowed the agents to intercept and record the phone calls he made regarding gambling information. An FBI agent later rented a hotel room next door to Mr. Katz and listened to his phone …show more content…
Katz placed his calls in was made of glass, he sought to exclude the uninvited ear. Since there was no physical penetration from the technique they used to listen to the calls, the Government argues the agents’ doings should not be tested by the Fourth Amendment. The court referred back to the Olmstead case, which they have withdrew from the narrow view on which decided the outcome of the case, and have conveyed that the Fourth Amendment extends to the recording of oral conversations that are overheard without any “technical trespass under… local property law.” The action of listening to and recording the phone call violated the privacy that the petitioner expected.
Dissenting: Mr. Justice BLACK, dissenting. Justice Black begins his statement explaining that if eavesdropping assisted by an electronic device constitutes a search or seizure, then he would join the rest of the court’s opinion. Black made clear that although wiretapping telephone lines was an unknown possibility when the Framers were writing the Bill of Rights, eavesdropping is, in simple terms, an ancient practice. If the Framers wanted to protect from eavesdropping, they would have put clear words in the Bill of