Katz Case Of Charles Katz

In the late 1960s, Charles Katz was found guilty under an eight-count indictment for executing unlawful gambling exercises across state borders, which served as an infringement on federal laws. In an attempt to gather more evidence on Katz’s actions, federal agents kept him under six days of surveillance, and then strategically placed a wiretapping device on the outside of a public telephone booth that he had been using over the course of those days. In doing so, they discovered that Katz was transmitting wagering details from Miami to Boston, (Katz 1967). Following these findings, the defendant appealed conviction, claiming that the sound bytes were procured in disregard to the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rebuffed this plea because the agents never physically stepped inside of the telephone booth, and the Fourth Amendment was not created to protect one’s rights in a public place. But, the Supreme Court overruled the defendant’s conviction and posed another angle of the scenario under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed that Katz had walked into the telephone booth, closed the door behind him, entered an outgoing call fee and placed his call—all under the impression that whatever he verbalized into the phone would solely be for the person at the other end of the line, and never publicized globally. The Majority’s Dissent—or the “opinion,” encompassed the main idea that the Fourth Amendment defends people, and not places, from unjustified searches and seizures; and although Katz did not choose to conceal his identity from the public when placing his phone call in a communal place, he did wish to excuse the unwelcomed ear—The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Katz’s favor, (Katz 1967).
In regard to...

... middle of paper ...

...emain respectable in the journalistic field, it is imperative to abide by all constitutional laws and ethical values.
Conclusively, “the First Amendment imposes limitations upon governmental abridgment of ‘freedom to associate, and privacy in one's associations,’” (Katz 1967). But, Katz v. United States is one of very few substantial scandals that lacks much relation to the First Amendment at all--the outcome of this scandal actually created a movement for the Fourth Amendment that allows citizens to be more secure in their right to privacy. Justice Harlan stated: “my understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior judicial decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable," (Katz 1967).