Judgments

KATZ VS UNITED STATES : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Katz Vs United States (1967) held that sharing of information through telephone is covered under Fourth Amendment protections and wiretapping of the same cannot be done without obtaining search warrant.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Charles Katz used to share gambling information through a telephone booth. FBI initiated investigation of his gambling activities without his knowledge. FBI recorded his conversation though a device attached to telephone booth. He was charged with transmitting gambling information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston in violation of Federal statute.  The recorded conversations were used in trial as evidence. The defense of the Petitioner that such evidence was in violation of 14th amendment was rejected by Court of Appeals and he was convicted. The matter finally reached to the Supreme Court.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Justice Potter Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Petitioner argued that the telephone booth from where he had made a call was a constitutionally protected area. Any evidence acquired by attaching recording device is in violation of right to privacy.

The Supreme  Court noted that this was a wrong approach. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in own home or office, is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to public, may be constitutionally protected.

It was contended by the Government that there has not been any physical penetration of the telephone booth from where the petitioner made his calls as such there was no violation of Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court observed that it has departed from narrow view in  Olmstead vs United States wherein it was held that Fourth Amendment limited only searches and seizures of tangible property. Once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects  people and not simply areas against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that reach of that amendment cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.

The Supreme Court observed that the Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the Petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a “search and seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The fact that the electronic device employed to achieve that end did not happen to penetrate the wall of the booth cannot have any constitutional significance.

It was contended by the Government that investigation disclosed that the Petitioner was using telephone for transmitting gambling information. Surveillance was limited in scope and duration to the specific purpose of establishing the contents of the Petitioner’s unlawful telephonic communication.

The Supreme Court held that surveillance could not have been done without any judicial order. Searches conducted outside the judicial process without prior approval by judge or magistrate are per se unreasonable under Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few established and specifically delineated exceptions.

Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agent ignored the procedure of antecedent justification, which is central to Fourth Amendment.  The Supreme Court concluded that surveillance in this case had failed to meet this condition and reversed the findings.

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUSTICE HARLAN

Justice Harlan delivered concurring opinion. Justice Harlan observed that  protection of people under Fourth Amendment has to be tested on two requirements – Firstly that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and second that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

A man’s home is for the most purposes a place where he expects privacy. On the other hand conversations in the open will not be protected against being overheard. The critical fact in this case is that one who occupies  a telephone booth shuts the door behind and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that his conversation is not being intercepted. The point is not that the booth is accessible to the public at other times, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants’ of freedom from intrusion recognized as reasonable.

DISSENTING OPINION JUSTICE BLACK

Justice Black wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Black was of the opinion that eavesdropping carried on by electronic means does not constitute search or seizure. The purpose of Fourth Amendment was to limit its protection to tangible things by providing that no warrants shall issue but those particularly describing the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized. The Supreme Court observed that the Fourth Amendment protects privacy only to the extent that it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers and effects. No general right is created by this Amendment so as to give this Court unlimited power to hold unconstitutional everything which affects privacy.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Katz Vs United States expanded the scope of Fourth Amendment protections. This judgment is a great safeguard against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance.

________________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *