Facts
- Charles Katz used a public telephone booth in Los Angeles to place calls transmitting wagering information to Miami and Boston in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084.
- After surveillance, FBI agents attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth used by Katz.
- The government recorded and later introduced at trial Katz’s side of the telephone conversations.
- Katz moved to suppress the recordings, arguing the surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The district court denied suppression, admitted the recordings, and Katz was convicted; the court of appeals affirmed on the ground that there was no physical intrusion into the booth area.
Issues
- Whether non-trespassory electronic eavesdropping and recording of a person’s conversations in a public telephone booth constitutes a “search and seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether the absence of physical penetration into an enclosure defeats a Fourth Amendment claim.
- Whether warrantless electronic surveillance of private conversations is permissible absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Decision
- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming Katz’s conviction.
- The Court held that the FBI’s electronic monitoring and recording of Katz’s phone conversations constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
- The Court rejected a rule that Fourth Amendment coverage turns on physical intrusion or entry.
- Because the surveillance was not conducted pursuant to a warrant, the recordings were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and were inadmissible.
- Justice Harlan concurred, articulating a two-part “reasonable expectation of privacy” analysis.
- Justice Black dissented, arguing the Fourth Amendment does not regulate interception of oral communications absent intrusion on tangible “persons, houses, papers, and effects.”
Legal Principles
- The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; what a person seeks to keep private, even in a public setting, can receive constitutional protection.
- A person who takes steps indicating an intent to keep communications private may have Fourth Amendment protection for those communications despite being in a location accessible to the public.
- Fourth Amendment analysis does not depend on physical trespass or penetration; electronic interception of conversations can be a search.
- Warrantless electronic surveillance of private conversations is presumptively unreasonable unless conducted under a valid warrant or a recognized exception.
- Reasonable-expectation framework (Harlan concurrence): Fourth Amendment protection applies when (1) the individual has a subjective expectation of privacy and (2) society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable.
Conclusion
The Court held that electronically listening to and recording Katz’s conversations from a public phone booth was a Fourth Amendment search and, because it was conducted without a warrant, the evidence was improperly admitted.