[Criminal Procedure] 3. KATZ v. UNITED STATES 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967)
Facts: the petitioner was convicted of transmitting across states wagering information over the telephone in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1084. Without a pre-issued warrant, federal agents had placed a wiretapping device on top of a phone booth where the petitioner was making the call and parts of the overheard conversation relevant to the prosecution were later admitted as evidence in court. The eavesdropping was not deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment by the court of appeals because it did not involve a physical violation of the phone booth.
Issue: is the right to privacy defined by place or person? Did the audio surveillance by the police constitute a breach of the constitutional provisions for privacy?
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, introduced the “trespass” doctrine that was visualized as a physical intrusion into an enclosed space.
Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 interpreted the constitutional protection of privacy as not being defined by space alone and that privacy might be protected even in a public area.
Silverman v. United States,365 U.S. 505, 511 ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects against illegal seizure not only tangible items but also the intangibles such as oral statements.
Application: the court does not agree with how the issues were presented by both sides. A great deal of effort had been invested by the petitioner and respondent in defining the phone booth as a constitutionally protected area or denying it as such based on its physical features. However, the court sees privacy as emanating from the person and his reasonable expectation of security from intrusion relates to both his own body and space. His phone call was the activity that the petitioner wanted to remain private and free from eavesdropping. The fact that the phone booth was made from transparent glass and the surveillance device did not breach its physical boundary are of no controlling relevance here. When the petitioner entered the phone booth, he effectively signaled his intention to exercise his right to privacy that transcends the physical characteristics of the enclosure. Although the police behavior during the surveillance was nothing short of blameless, self-restraint alone is not sufficient to safeguard this constitutional right and it must be grounded upon standard procedures of requesting and issuing warrants based on probable cause.
Conclusion: reversed and remanded
Comments: if we liberally construe the Fourth Amendment as transcending the traditional boundaries of space and medium, then what is there to stop it from being all inclusive?