Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
C
Citruscide
Guest
Again, these notes were taken during my 2nd year of law school... so my memory is hazy... I do believe that some parts were taken from legalines... such as the first part of the notes... (i.e., facts etc.).
Katz v. United States: People protected not things.
• Facts: The FBI monitored telephone conversations by attaching a listening device to the outside of a public telephone booth. Information gathered about wagering was used as evidence to convict Kats (D), who appealed his conviction. The court of appeals held that the search was not illegal because there was no physical entrance into the area occupied by D. The SC granted cert.
• Issue: Must the police obtain a search warrant before wiretapping a public telephone booth?
• Held: Yes. Conviction reversed.
• (a). Areas or places are not protected, but people are. What a person could reasonably expect to preserve as private (a conversation), even in an area accessible to the public, is protected from unlawful invasion without a warrant. Wherever a person is, he is entitled to know that he will remain free form unreasonable searches and seizures.
• (b). Physical intrusion and the theory of seizure only of material items as unlawful is discredited. The government, however, could have made the search had it first obtained a search warrant.
• Concurrence: (Harlan). The critical factor here is that the booth becomes temporarily private place when someone enters it and shuts the door.
• Dissent: The 4th Amendment does not forbid eavesdropping. Wiretapping is the modern equivalent of eavesdropping.
• Comment: The Katz court added that no electronic surveillance may be undertaken without a search warrant. Such searches without warrants are per se unreasonable. The decisions goes on to set forth the standards under which such warrants will be issued.
• Consequences of Katz: A number of questions remain after the Katz decision. Does protection depend on whether the police use artificial means of surveilance? What if the police are in a public place and simply observe what the D wants to keep private?
• Formerly searches were illegal only when they constituted an unauthorized intrusion by the police into an area where “privacy would normally be expected by the owner or occupant of the property.” Therefore, observing that which was open to the public view did not constitute an illegal search. This is probably still the law.
• For example, the SC in Harris v. US, that objects falling into the “Plain view” of an officer are subject to seizure without a warrant; or what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in her own home, is not protected by the 4th amendment. Of course, where the police use some artifical means to observe the D’s conduct, then the “search” may fall within the proscription of Katz.
C-ditty
Katz v. United States: People protected not things.
• Facts: The FBI monitored telephone conversations by attaching a listening device to the outside of a public telephone booth. Information gathered about wagering was used as evidence to convict Kats (D), who appealed his conviction. The court of appeals held that the search was not illegal because there was no physical entrance into the area occupied by D. The SC granted cert.
• Issue: Must the police obtain a search warrant before wiretapping a public telephone booth?
• Held: Yes. Conviction reversed.
• (a). Areas or places are not protected, but people are. What a person could reasonably expect to preserve as private (a conversation), even in an area accessible to the public, is protected from unlawful invasion without a warrant. Wherever a person is, he is entitled to know that he will remain free form unreasonable searches and seizures.
• (b). Physical intrusion and the theory of seizure only of material items as unlawful is discredited. The government, however, could have made the search had it first obtained a search warrant.
• Concurrence: (Harlan). The critical factor here is that the booth becomes temporarily private place when someone enters it and shuts the door.
• Dissent: The 4th Amendment does not forbid eavesdropping. Wiretapping is the modern equivalent of eavesdropping.
• Comment: The Katz court added that no electronic surveillance may be undertaken without a search warrant. Such searches without warrants are per se unreasonable. The decisions goes on to set forth the standards under which such warrants will be issued.
• Consequences of Katz: A number of questions remain after the Katz decision. Does protection depend on whether the police use artificial means of surveilance? What if the police are in a public place and simply observe what the D wants to keep private?
• Formerly searches were illegal only when they constituted an unauthorized intrusion by the police into an area where “privacy would normally be expected by the owner or occupant of the property.” Therefore, observing that which was open to the public view did not constitute an illegal search. This is probably still the law.
• For example, the SC in Harris v. US, that objects falling into the “Plain view” of an officer are subject to seizure without a warrant; or what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in her own home, is not protected by the 4th amendment. Of course, where the police use some artifical means to observe the D’s conduct, then the “search” may fall within the proscription of Katz.
C-ditty
