Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
1 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Katz v. United States
|
Issue(s): * Does the Fourth Amendment protect the private conversations of an individual made in a telephone booth?
* Is a physical intrusion by government officials required to violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, or is a warrant-less electronic tap of the defendant's phone call enough of an act to violate his/her rights? * Is the government required to obtain a search warrant before executing a wiretap, or is a determination by the federal agents that probable cause exists enough? Holding: 7 to 1 Majority, * So long as an individual can justifiably expect that his conversation would remain private, his/her conversation is protected from "unreasonable search and seizure" by the Fourth Amendment. * The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Therefore, the rights of an individual may not be violated, regardless of whether or not there is physical intrusion into any given area. * A warrant is required before the government can execute a wiretap, and the warrant must be sufficiently limited in scope and duration. Dissent: Justice Black - 4th amendment not intended to apply to wiretaps or eavesdropping. Only meant to apply to "tangible" personal property |
