JUDICIAL HISTORY:
This case started from the premise of citizens having “having reasonable expectation of privacy”. The FBI felt that placing a listening device outside of a public phone booth did not violate Katz privacy because it did not penetrate the wall. Whether or not the phone calls were to be considered a search depended upon whether or not Katz had “reasonable expectation that his calls were private. The court stated that what a person knowingly exposes to the public even in his home or office is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.
FACTS:
Katz was a bookie who used a telephone booth to transmit illegal gaming bets from Los Angeles, Miami and Boston. The FBI placed a device on top of the phone booth to monitor all of his conversations
This case started from the premise of citizens having “having reasonable expectation of privacy”. The FBI felt that placing a listening device outside of a public phone booth did not violate Katz privacy because it did not penetrate the wall. Whether or not the phone calls were to be considered a search depended upon whether or not Katz had “reasonable expectation that his calls were private. The court stated that what a person knowingly exposes to the public even in his home or office is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection.
FACTS:
Katz was a bookie who used a telephone booth to transmit illegal gaming bets from Los Angeles, Miami and Boston. The FBI placed a device on top of the phone booth to monitor all of his conversations