РефератыИностранный языкPrPrivacy Katz Vs United States Essay Research

Privacy Katz Vs United States Essay Research

Privacy: Katz Vs. United States Essay, Research Paper


Katz V. The United States The petitioner Mr. Katz was arrested for illegal


gambling, he had been gambling over a public phone. The FBI attached


an electronic recorder onto the outside of the public phone booth. The


state courts claimed this to be legal because the recording device was on


the outside of the phone and the FBI never entered the booth. The


Supreme Court Ruled in the favor of Katz. They stated that the Fourth


Amendment allowed for the protection of a person and not just a person’s


property against illegal searches.


The Fourth Amendment written in 1791 states, The right of the


people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against


unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no


warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or


affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the


persons or things to be seized (Galloway 214). The court was unsure on


weather or not they should consider a public telephone booth as an area


protected by the fourth amendment.


The court did state that: The Fourth Amendment protects people,


not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his


own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But


what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the


public, may be constitutionally protected.


Searches conducted without warrants have been held unlawful


notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing probable cause, for the


Constitution requires that the deliberate impartial judgment of a judicial


officer be interposed between the citizen and the police (Maddex 201).


The FBI agents found out the days and times he would use the pay


phone. The FBI attached a tape recorder to the outside of the telephone


booth. The FBI recorded him using the phone six different times, all six


conversations were around three minutes long. They made sure that they


only recorded him and not anyone else’s conversations. Katz lost the


case all the way up to the Supreme Court because the state courts and


the Court of Appeals said there was no amendment violation since there


was “no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner (Hall


482).”


The Constitutional Fourth Amendment was looked at and analyzed


very carefully and the Supreme Court decided in favor of Katz with a


seven to one vote. Strong arguments were brought to the stand, the


Governments eavesdropping violated the privacy of Katz. “The Fourth


Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as


well the recording of oral statements (Katzen 1).” The surveillance in this


case could have been legal by the constitution, but it was not part of the


warrant issued.


Warrants are very valuable to make everything stated in the fourth


amendment legal. The telephone booth was made of glass so he was


visible to the public, but he did not enter the booth so no one could see


him, he entered the booth so no one could hear him. A person in a


telephone booth is under protection of the Fourth Amendment, One who


occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him


to place a call is surly entitled to assume that the words he utters into the


mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world.


To read the constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that


the public telephone has to come to play in private communication


(Katzen 2). But with all this evidence it was still fought that the


>

surveillance method they used involved no physical penetration into the


telephone booth. The Fourth Amendment was thought to limit only


searches and seizures of tangible property.


The decision of the court was seven to one and Justice Marshall


took no part in the decision of the case. Justice Stewart concurred in his


speech that, …these considerations do not vanish when the search in


question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel


room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled


to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures


(Katzen 4).


Justice Stewart’s feelings on the case were that the use of


electronic surveillance should be regulated. He thinks permission should


be granted for the use of electronic surveillance. Justice Douglas, with


whom Justice Brennan joined, concurred that “The Fourth Amendment


draws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests in


cases of hot pursuit and the arrests on visible or other evidence of


probable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind of


crime (Galloway 216). ” Justice Harlan concurred that like a home a


telephone booth has its privacy. And the intrusion into a place that is


private is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Also, warrants are very


important in legal procedures of the court and must be followed through.


Justice White Concurred, I agree that the official surveillance of


petitioner’s telephone conversations in a public booth must be subjected


to the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment the particular


surveillance undertaken was unreasonable absent a warrant properly


authorizing it (Hall 482).


Justice Fortas and Justice Douglas concurred together and said


that the fourth amendment should be revised for todays technology.


Although the right of the fourth amendment has come up allot like the


Osborn V. United States case. Now it is time to adjust and start by


saying that the FBI “violated the privacy upon which the petitioner


justifiably relied while using the telephone booth (Levy 1097)”.


Justice Black dissented, he could not concur because he could not


make the amendment say what it didn’t know when it was written, “I will


not distort the words of the amendment in order to keep the constitution


up to date (Katzen 15).” He believes that privacy is that only explained in


the fourth Amendment and no general right is granted, by the amendment


so as to give this court the unlimited power to hold unconstitutional


everything which affects privacy…the framers…did not intend to grant this


court such omnipotent lawmaking authority as that…for these reasons I


respectfully dissent(Katzen 15). After this case the court made some


requirements for electronic eavesdropping. Most of them were put in the


Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. There are strict


requirements for electronic surveillance. Warrants now have to be


specified for the use of electronic devices.


5a0


Galloway, John, (ed.) The Supreme Court and The Rights of The


Accused. New York: Facts on File, 1973.


Hall, Kermit. The Oxford Companion to The Supreme Court of The


United States. New York: Oxford, 1992.


Katzen, Sally. “Katz V. United States”. FedWorld/FLITE Supreme


Court Decisions Homepage. 24 Sep. 1997.


Online. http://www.fedworld.gov.


Levy, Leonard, (ed.) Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.


New York: Macmillan, 1986.


Maddex, James, Jr. Constitutional Law: Cases and Comments. St.


Paul: West, 1979.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Privacy Katz Vs United States Essay Research

Слов:1274
Символов:8580
Размер:16.76 Кб.