Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Katz v.

United States
389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Facts:

 Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to
clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a
public phone booth used by Katz.

 At trial, the Government was permitted, over the petitioner's objection, to introduce evidence
of the petitioner's end of telephone conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had
attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone
booth from which he had placed his calls.

 Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted under an eight-
count indictment for the illegal transmission of wagering information from Los Angeles to
Boston and Miami.

 On appeal, Katz challenged his conviction arguing that the recordings could not be used as
evidence against him. The Court of Appeals rejected this point, noting the absence of a
physical intrusion into the phone booth itself.

Issue:

WON the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects telephone conversations conducted in a
phone booth and secretly recorded from introduction as evidence against a person?

Held:

Yes. The Court held that wiretapping violated the privacy of the criminal defendant, Charles Katz,
privacy that he expected to have once entering a phone booth and closing the door.

The petitioner strenuously asserted that the phone booth was a constitutionally protected area.
However, the Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places from unreasonable intrusion.
Even in a public place, a person may have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his person.
Although the petitioner did not seek to hide his self from public view when he entered the telephone
booth, he did seek to keep out the uninvited ear. He did not relinquish his right to do so simply
because he went to a place where he could be seen.

A person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the protection of the Fourth Amendment of
the Constitution as he assumes that the words he utters into the telephone will not be broadcast to
the world. Once this is acknowledged, it is clear that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution
protects persons and not areas from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s telephone
conversations constituted a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and absent a search
warrant predicated upon sufficient probable cause, all evidence obtained is inadmissible.

Justice Black’s Dissent:

J. Black observed that eavesdropping was an ancient practice that the Framers were certainly
aware of when they drafted the United States Constitution. Had they wished to prohibit this activity
under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution they would have added such language that would
have effectively done so.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen