Katz v. United States

Last updated

Katz v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 17, 1967
Decided December 18, 1967
Full case nameCharles Katz v. United States, Leach-Lewis v. Bd. of Supervisors
Citations389 U.S. 347 ( more )
88 S. Ct. 507; 19 L. Ed. 2d 576; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2
Case history
Prior369 F.2d 130 (9th Cir. 1966); cert. granted, 386 U.S. 954(1967).
Holding
The Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and seizure extends to any area where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Court membership
Chief Justice
Earl Warren
Associate Justices
Hugo Black  · William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Abe Fortas  · Thurgood Marshall
Case opinions
MajorityStewart, joined by Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, White, Fortas
ConcurrenceDouglas, joined by Brennan
ConcurrenceHarlan
ConcurrenceWhite
DissentBlack
Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Olmstead v. United States (1928)

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects", as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". [2] The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, now known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II. [3]

Contents

The Katz test has since been used in numerous cases, particularly because of technological advances that create new questions about privacy norms and government surveillance of personal data. [4]

Background

Charles Katz was a sports bettor who by the mid-1960s had become "probably the preeminent college basketball handicapper in America." [5] In 1965, Katz regularly used a public telephone booth near his apartment on Sunset Boulevard in Los Angeles to communicate his gambling handicaps to bookmakers in Boston and Miami. [5] Unbeknownst to Katz, the FBI had begun investigating his gambling activities and was recording his conversations via a covert listening device attached to the outside of the phone booth. After recording many of his phone calls, FBI agents arrested Katz and charged him with eight counts of knowingly transmitting wagering information by telephone between U.S. states, [6] which is a federal crime under Section 18 of the United States Code, particularly a law on the transmission of wagering information. [7]

Katz was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [lower-alpha 1] Katz moved to suppress the FBI's recordings, arguing that because the agents did not have a search warrant allowing them to place their listening device, the recordings had been made in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should be inadmissible in court per the exclusionary rule. The judge denied Katz's motion and ruled that the recordings were admissible as evidence, and Katz was convicted based on them. [2]

Katz appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 1966, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Katz's conviction, ruling that because the FBI's eavesdropping device did not physically penetrate the telephone booth's wall, no Fourth Amendment search occurred, and so the FBI did not need a warrant to place the device. [8] [6] Katz then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case and granted certiorari . [9] [10]

Opinion of the court

On December 18, 1967, the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 [lower-alpha 2] decision in favor of Katz that invalidated the FBI's wiretap evidence and overturned Katz's criminal conviction. [2]

Justice Potter Stewart, who authored the Court's opinion in Katz US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart - 1976 official portrait.jpg
Justice Potter Stewart, who authored the Court's opinion in Katz

The majority opinion was written by Justice Potter Stewart. The Court began by dismissing the parties' characterization of the case in terms of a traditional trespass-based analysis that hinged on, first, whether the public telephone booth Katz had used was a "constitutionally protected area" where he had a "right of privacy"; and second, on whether the FBI had "physically penetrated" the protected area and thus violated the Fourth Amendment. [11] Instead, the Court viewed the situation through the lens of how Katz's use of the phone booth would be perceived by himself and then objectively by others. In a now well-known passage, Stewart wrote:

The petitioner [Katz] has strenuously argued that the booth was a "constitutionally protected area". The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given "area", viewed in the abstract, is "constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For 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.

— Katz, 389 U.S. at 352 (footnotes and citations omitted). [12]

The Supreme Court then briefly surveyed the history of American jurisprudence on governmental searches and seizures. It described how American courts had traditionally analyzed Fourth Amendment searches by analogizing them to the long-established doctrine of trespass. In their legal briefs, the parties had focused on the 1928 precedent Olmstead v. United States , in which the Court ruled that surveillance by wiretap without any trespass did not constitute a "search" for Fourth Amendment purposes. However, the Court stated that in later cases it had begun recognizing that the Fourth Amendment applied to recorded speech obtained without any physical trespassing, and that the law had evolved. [13] Stewart wrote:

We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead [and similar cases] have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the "trespass" doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy on which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

— Katz, 389 U.S. at 353. [14]

Stewart then concluded the Court's opinion by ruling that even though the FBI knew there was a "strong probability" that Katz was breaking the law when using the phone booth, their use of the wiretap was an unconstitutional search because they did not obtain a warrant before placing the listening device. This overturned Katz's criminal conviction as a constitutional violation. [15]

Harlan's concurrence

Justice John Marshall Harlan II, whose concurring opinion created the two-part "Katz test" that is regularly applied in Fourth Amendment cases John Marshall Harlan II official.jpg
Justice John Marshall Harlan II, whose concurring opinion created the two-part "Katz test" that is regularly applied in Fourth Amendment cases

Justice John Marshall Harlan II's concurring opinion in Katz has become even more influential than the majority opinion. It describes a two-part test which has come to be known as the Katz test. [15]

Harlan began his opinion by noting that he was writing separately to elaborate on the meaning of Stewart's majority opinion. Harlan explained that he interpreted Stewart's statements that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places" and "what a person knowingly exposes to the public [...] is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection" to mean that the Fourth Amendment is activated any time a person has an expectation of privacy that is both subjective and objectively reasonable in the eyes of society at large. [2] He summarized his view of the law as comprising a two-part test:

My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable". Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable.

— Katz, 389 U.S. at 361 (Harlan, J., concurring). [16]

The Supreme Court adopted Harlan's two-part test as a formulation of the Fourth Amendment search analysis for most subsequent cases involving governmental searches that generated constitutional challenges. [17]

Black's dissent

Justice Hugo Black was the only dissenter in the decision. He argued that the Fourth Amendment was only meant to protect "things" from physical search and seizure, and was not meant to protect personal privacy. Additionally, Black argued that the modern act of wiretapping was analogous to the act of eavesdropping, which was around even when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Black concluded that if the drafters of the Fourth Amendment had meant for it to protect against eavesdropping they would have included the proper language. [2]

Impact and legacy

The Supreme Court's decision in Katz significantly expanded the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protections, and represented an unprecedented shift in American search and seizure jurisprudence. Many law enforcement practices that previously were not "within the view" of the Fourth Amendment—such as wiretaps on public phone wires—are now covered by the Fourth Amendment and cannot be conducted without first obtaining a search warrant. [18] The Katz precedent continues to be consulted regularly to interpret disputes over modern electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency and law enforcement entities, [19] though with some concerns that the Katz test is becoming outdated due to modern surveillance technologies. [20]

However, Katz also created significantly more uncertainty surrounding the application of the Fourth Amendment. The Katz test of an objective "reasonable expectation of privacy", which has been widely adopted by U.S. courts, has proven much more difficult to apply than the traditional analysis of whether a physical intrusion into "persons, houses, papers, and effects" occurred. [21] In a 2007 Stanford Law Review article, the American legal scholar Orin Kerr described the scholarly consensus that the Katz test has been a failure:

According to the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment regulates government conduct that violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy. But no one seems to know what makes an expectation of privacy constitutionally "reasonable". [...] Although four decades have passed since Justice Harlan introduced the test in his concurrence in Katz v. United States, the meaning of the phrase "reasonable expectation of privacy" remains remarkably opaque. [...] The consensus among scholars is that the Supreme Court's "reasonable expectation of privacy" cases are a failure. [22]

Legal scholars have praised the case calling it "the king of surveillance cases" since it stated "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." [23] They also state that this case stood as a "bulwark against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance." [24]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ The Southern District was split in 1966, and today the case would fall under the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
  2. ↑ Newly appointed justice Thurgood Marshall recused himself from the case to avoid a conflict of interest. Marshall had been the U.S. Solicitor General up until two weeks before oral arguments, and he had helped write the U.S. government's brief in the case.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the federal government but also to the state governments. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968</span> US federal legislation

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 was legislation passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson that established the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). Title III of the Act set rules for obtaining wiretap orders in the United States. The act was a major accomplishment of Johnson's war on crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Search and seizure</span> Police powers

Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Open-fields doctrine</span> N.Z. legal rule allowing warrantless searches of private property not near houses

The open-fields doctrine, in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, "unless there is some other legal basis for the search," such a search "must exclude the home and any adjoining land that is within an enclosure or otherwise protected from public scrutiny."

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the matter of whether wiretapping of private telephone conversations, conducted by federal agents without a search warrant with recordings subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the target’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the Constitutional rights of a wiretapping target have not been violated.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against unreasonable search and seizure. This right provides those in Canada with their primary source of constitutionally enforced privacy rights against unreasonable intrusion from the state. Typically, this protects personal information that can be obtained through searching someone in pat-down, entering someone's property or surveillance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secrecy of correspondence</span> Legal right to privacy in some European nations

The secrecy of correspondence or literally translated as secrecy of letters, is a fundamental legal principle enshrined in the constitutions of several European countries. It guarantees that the content of sealed letters is never revealed, and that letters in transit are not opened by government officials, or any other third party. The right of privacy to one's own letters is the main legal basis for the assumption of privacy of correspondence.

In United States constitutional law, expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems. Overall, expectations of privacy can be subjective or objective.

Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), was a Supreme Court case holding that the installation and use of a pen register by the police to obtain information on a suspect's telephone calls was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and hence no search warrant was required. In the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun rejected the idea that the installation and use of a pen register constitutes a violation of the suspect's reasonable expectation of privacy since the telephone numbers would be available to and recorded by the phone company anyway.

Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court decision invalidating a New York law under the Fourth Amendment, because the statute authorized electronic eavesdropping without required procedural safeguards.

State v. Reid, 194 N.J. 386, 954 A.2d 503, was a criminal court case in which the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that Internet service provider (ISP) subscribers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the identifying information they provide to ISPs. This case has helped place New Jersey at the forefront of the states committed to providing their residents with broader privacy protections than those available under federal law.

United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that recording conversations using concealed radio transmitters worn by informants does not violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and thus does not require a warrant.

Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on privacy and the Fourth Amendment. It originated in the lower courts as United States ex rel. Frank DeForte, appellant v. Vincent R. Mancusi, Warden of Attica Prison, Attica, New York, appellee, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a prisoner who had exhausted all his state appeals. By a 6–3 margin the Court affirmed the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of a district court denial of the petition.

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of an electronic surveillance device. The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation. The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance. During a single trip, officers followed a car containing the beeper, relying on beeper signal to determine the car's final destination. The Court unanimously held that since the use of such a device did not violate a legitimate expectation of privacy there was no search and seizure and thus the use was allowed without a warrant. It reasoned that a person traveling in public has no expectation of privacy in one's movements. Since there was no search and seizure there was not a Fourth Amendment violation.

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prison inmates have no privacy rights in their cells protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also held that an intentional deprivation of property by a state employee "does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists," extending Parratt v. Taylor to intentional torts.

Digital Search and Seizure refers to the ability of the United States Government to obtain and read an individual's private digital correspondence and material under The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ LaFave (2012), § 2.1(a).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Katz v. United States, 389 US 347 (1967).
  3. ↑ LaFave (2012), § 2.1(d), p. 586.
  4. ↑ Tokson, Mathew (2016). "KNOWLEDGE AND FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY". Northwestern University Law Review.
  5. 1 2 Schneider (2016), p. 13.
  6. 1 2 LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), p. 576.
  7. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1084.
  8. ↑ Katz v. United States, 369 F. 2d 130 (9th Cir., 1966).
  9. ↑ LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), pp. 576–77.
  10. ↑ Schneider (2016), p. 18, n. 32.
  11. ↑ LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), p. 577.
  12. ↑ Quoted in LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), p. 577.
  13. ↑ LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), pp. 576–78.
  14. ↑ Quoted in LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), pp. 578–79
  15. 1 2 LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), p. 579.
  16. ↑ Quoted in LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), p. 579.
  17. ↑ "Katz and the Adoption of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test". Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. Archived from the original on September 18, 2023. Retrieved November 7, 2022.
  18. ↑ Serr, Brian J. (1989). "Great Expectations of Privacy: A New Model for Fourth Amendment Protection". Minnesota Law Review. 73 (3): 583–642 – via HeinOnline.
  19. ↑ Smith, Lauren Elena (2013). "Jonesing for a Test: Fourth Amendment Privacy in the Wake of United States v. Jones". Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 28 (Annual Review): 1003–1036 – via HeinOnline.
  20. ↑ Arcila, Jr., Fabio (December 2012). "GPS Tracking out of Fourth Amendment Dead Ends: United States v. Jones and the Katz Conundrum". North Carolina Law Review. 91 (1): 1–78 – via HeinOnline.
  21. ↑ LaFave (2012), § 2.1(b), pp. 580–82.
  22. ↑ Kerr (2007), pp. 504–05.
  23. ↑ Swire, Peter P. (2004). "Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz". Michigan Law Review. 102 (5): 904–932. doi:10.2307/4141984. ISSN   0026-2234.
  24. ↑ Swire, Peter P. (2004). "Katz Is Dead. Long Live Katz". Michigan Law Review. 102 (5): 904–932. doi:10.2307/4141984. ISSN   0026-2234.

Works cited

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.