POLS 4720E Chapter Notes - Chapter 1: Hoffa, Hung Jury, Harry Blackmun
29 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Hammock !1
Alexandra Hammock
Professor Wilhelm
POLS 4720E
5 June 2018
I. Katz v. U.S. (1967)
A. Case Facts:
1. Federal agents suspected Katz was transmitting gambling information through a
public phone booth. An eavesdropping device was placed on the outside of the booth
to record Katz’s conversation. The recordings taken incriminated Katz, and he was
convicted under an eight-count indictment. Katz challenged his conviction on the
basis that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. The Court of
Appeals noted that this evidence should not have been included because there was
not an actual entrance into the phone booth. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
B. Legal Question:
1. In keeping with good standing of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures, do police officers need a search warrant in order
to monitor a public pay phone?
C. Outcome:
1. 7-1 Decision for Katz
2. Majority — Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas
3. Dissenting — Black
4. Non-participating — Marshall
D. Legal Reasoning:
1. Justice Stewart ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals, not places. The
Court ruled in favor of the right to privacy from unlawful searches and seizures and is
therefore entitled to his private conversations. The “Penetration” rule was abandoned
by the Court in the ruling for Katz v. U.S.. The Court ruled that the “expectation to
privacy” applies to all searches and seizures. 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
I. Olmstead v. U.S. (1928)
A. Case Facts:
1. Federal agents wiretapped suspected bootlegger, Roy Olmstead’s, basement without
judicial approval. This basement was where Olmstead maintained his office. The
evidence gained from the wiretap convicted Olmstead. The Court decided this case,
along with cases such as Green v. United States.
B. Legal Question:
1. Did the federal agents use of the evidence obtained by the unapproved wiretap of
private conversations violate Olmstead’s Fourth and Fifth Amendments?
C. Outcome:
1. 5-4 Decision for United States
2. Majority — Taft, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Sutherland, Sanford
3. Dissenting — Holmes, Brandeis, Butler, Stone
Document Summary
5 june 2018: katz v. u. s. (1967, case facts, federal agents suspected katz was transmitting gambling information through a public phone booth. An eavesdropping device was placed on the outside of the booth to record katz"s conversation. The recordings taken incriminated katz, and he was convicted under an eight-count indictment. Katz challenged his conviction on the basis that the recordings could not be used as evidence against him. Appeals noted that this evidence should not have been included because there was not an actual entrance into the phone booth. The supreme court granted certiorari: legal question: Justice stewart ruled that the fourth amendment protects individuals, not places. Court ruled in favor of the right to privacy from unlawful searches and seizures and is therefore entitled to his private conversations. The penetration rule was abandoned by the court in the ruling for katz v. u. s The court ruled that the expectation to privacy applies to all searches and seizures.
