Adrienna K. Jones
Katz v. United States
389 U.S. 347 (1967)
http://laws.findlaw.com/US/389/347.html
Oral arguments are available at http://www.oyez.org
Vote: 7(Brennan, Douglas, Fortas, Harlan, Stewart, Warren, White)
1(Black)
FACTS
Katz used a public telephone booth to transmit informa2on from Los Angeles to Boston and Miami in
viola2on of federal law. The FBI placed a listening device to the top of the telephone booth and recorded
the end of the telephone conversa2ons which was then used as evidence against him at his trial. The
pe22oner moved to have the evidence suppressed under the Fourth Amendment of the Cons2tu2on,
and that motion was denied. The Court of Appeals rejected the conten2on that the evidence is
inadmissible. Cer2orari was granted.
ISSUE
1. Did the government violate Katz’s Fourth Amendment rights when its agents attached electronic
listening and recording devices to the outside of the phone booth?
Yes, the government violated Katz’s right to privacy.
DECISION
The Court ruled 7–1 in favor of Katz
REASON
Wri2ng for the majority, justice Stewart wrote, “One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the door
behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely en2tled to assume that the words
he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.” Certain details, such as shuBng the
door on the telephone booth, help determine if a person intends for a conversa2on to be private. Thus,
private conversa2ons can be made in public areas.
Analysis and Reasoning
Mr. Katz was convicted for transmiBng informa2on regarding illegal gambling from a public telephone
booth in Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. The evidence leading to his convic2on was obtained through
a recording device attached to the outside the telephone booth he frequented. The police did not obtain
a warrant for this wiretap. He appealed the case saying that the recordings were obtained in viola2on of
the 4th amendment, but was denied by the Court of Appeals because there was no physical entrance
into the area occupied by the pe22oner. Mr. Katz’s initial argument stated that the police violated his
