In Katz v. United States, Charles Katz was involved in a gambling operation because he was a bookie. In this gambling operation he would frequently visit the same pay phone and speak to different people in Miami and across interstate lines because he was in Las Angles. The FBI decided to bug the phone booth from the exterior. They had not received a warrant to breach Mr. Katz’s fourth amendment right. The court of appeals sided with the FBI, but the Supreme Court decided in a 7-1 decision that Mr. Katz was entitled to his fourth amendment rights. They ruled that the fourth amendment applied because as justice Stewart states when a person shuts the door and pays the toll they are entitled to privacy protected by the fourth amendment. (Oyez) Existing trespass doctrine from Olmstead v. United States, which had ruled that a
…show more content…
The Supreme Court ruled that the trespass doctrine did not hold true here and if the government listens to a conversation then their right to privacy is being violated because the words Mr. Katz is speaking constitutes as a search and seizure. Justice Harland’s two-prong test stated that 1 he individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and 2 that society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance.” (Law.cornell.edu) The Supreme court said even if the booth was made of glass and Katz could was seen entering the booth he personally did not want to be heard and did not care if he was seen. As Stewart said Katz did not care for the “intruding eye -- it was the uninvited ear.” (Law.cornell.edu) By shutting the door behind him Katz made it clear he desired expectations of privacy for the words he was going to speak. If he had kept the door open then he would not have been expecting
The Supreme Court ruled that the trespass doctrine did not hold true here and if the government listens to a conversation then their right to privacy is being violated because the words Mr. Katz is speaking constitutes as a search and seizure. Justice Harland’s two-prong test stated that 1 he individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and 2 that society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance.” (Law.cornell.edu) The Supreme court said even if the booth was made of glass and Katz could was seen entering the booth he personally did not want to be heard and did not care if he was seen. As Stewart said Katz did not care for the “intruding eye -- it was the uninvited ear.” (Law.cornell.edu) By shutting the door behind him Katz made it clear he desired expectations of privacy for the words he was going to speak. If he had kept the door open then he would not have been expecting