OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Katzenbach v. McClung

Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce. The ruling was a 9–0 decision in favor of the plaintiff—the United States government. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
379 U.S. 294
Katzenbach v. McClung
Argued: Oct. 5, 1964. --- Decided: Dec 14, 1964
Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., for appellants.
Robert McDavid Smith, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees.
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Katz v. United States (386 U.S. 954)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Wikipedia article
United States Supreme Court
386 U.S. 954
Katz v. United States
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:
'1. Whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
A. Whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area so that evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth.
B. Whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary before a search and seizure can be said to be violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
'2. Whether the search warrant used by the Federal Officers in the instant case violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that said warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; (b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant.'
The Court also wishes counsel to brief and present oral argument on the holding in Frank v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 347 F.2d 486 as it may affect this case.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Katz v. United States (389 U.S. 347)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the “right to privacy” and the legal definition of a “search”. The Court’s ruling adjusted previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling Olmstead v. United States and Goldman v. United States. Katz also extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Concurring Opinions

    Douglas
    Harlan
    White

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 347
Katz v. United States
Argued: Oct. 17, 1967. --- Decided: Dec 18, 1967
Harvey A. Schneider and Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner.
John S. Martin, Jr., Washington, D.C., for respondent.
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Katz v. United States (389 U.S. 347)/Concurrence White

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Douglas Harlan White
* Dissenting Opinion Black
Mr. Justice WHITE, concurring.
I agree that the official surveillance of petitioner's telephone conversations in a public booth must be subjected to the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and that on the record now before us the particular surveillance undertaken was unreasonable absent a warrant properly authorizing it. This application of the Fourth Amendment need not interfere with legitimate needs of law enforcement. #fn-s-s
In joining the Court's opinion, I note the Court's acknowledgment that there are circumstance in which it is reasonable to search without a warrant. In this connection, in footnote 23 the Court points out that today's decision does not reach national security cases. Wiretapping to protect the security of the Nation has been authorized by successive Presidents. The present Administration would apparently save national security cases from restrictions against wiretapping. See Berger v. State of New York, 388 U.S. 41, 112-118, 87 S.Ct. 1873, 1911-1914, 18 L.Ed.2d 1040 (1967) (White, J., dissenting). We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.
# Katzenbach v. Morgan

Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws which enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution. Warning: template has been deprecated.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Harlan
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 641
Katzenbach v. Morgan
Argued: April 18, 1966. --- Decided: June 13, 1966
[Syllabus from pages 641-642 intentionally omitted]
Sol. Gen. Thurgood Marshall and J. Lee Rankin, New York City, for appellants.
Alfred Avins, Memphis, Tenn., for appellees.
Rafael Hernandez Colon, Ponce, P.R., for Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as amicus curiae.
Jean M. Coon, Albany, N.Y., for State of New York, as amicus curiae.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Katz v. United States (389 U.S. 347)/Concurrence Douglas

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Douglas Harlan White
* Dissenting Opinion Black
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom Mr. Justice BRENNAN joins, concurring.
While I join the opinion of the Court, I feel compelled to reply to the separate concurring opinion of my Brother WHITE, which I view as a wholly unwarranted green light for the Executive Branch to resort to electronic eavesdropping without a warrant in cases which the Executive Branch itself labels 'national security' matters.
Neither the President nor the Attorney General is a magistrate. In matters where they believe national security may be involved they are not detached, disinterested, and neutral as a court or magistrate must be. Under the separation of powers created by the Constitution, the Executive Branch is not supposed to be neutral and disinterested. Rather it should vigorously investigate and prevent breaches of national security and prosecute those who violate the pertinent federal laws. The President and Attorney General are properly interested parties, cast in the role of adversary, in national security cases. They may even be the intended victims of subversive action. Since spies and saboteurs are as entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as suspected gamblers like petitioner, I cannot agree that where spies and saboteurs are involved adequate protection of Fourth Amendment rights is assured when the President and Attorney General assume both the position of adversary-and-prosecutor and disinterested, neutral magistrate.
There is, so far as I understand constitutional history, no distinction under the Fourth Amendment between types of crimes. Article III, § 3, gives 'treason' a very narrow definition and puts restrictions on its proof. But the Fourth Amendment draws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests on cases of 'hot pursuit' and the arrests on visible or other evidence of probable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind of crime.
I would respect the present lines of distinction and not improvise because a particular crime seems particularly heinous. When the Framers took that step, as they did with treason, the worst crime of all, they made their purpose manifest.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (after 18 June 1415)

English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 18, John Huss to his Benefactors", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 69, To his Friends in Constance", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (after 20 March 1415)

Bohumil Mareš dated the letter after 20 March 1415 (Listy Husovy, 1911)
English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 17, To John of Chlum", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 51, To his Friends after the Pope's Flight", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (5 June 1415)

English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 29, To one of his Friends", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 54, To his Friends staying on in Constance", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (5–18 March 1415)

Bohumil Mareš dated the letter between 5 and 18 March 1415 (Listy Husovy, 1911)
English-language translations of Svým přátelům include:
* "Letter 24, John Huss's Reply", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 50, To his Friends", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (after 8 June 1415) (1)

English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 43", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 60, To his Friends staying on in Constance", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (after 8 June 1415) (2)

Bohumil Mareš dated the letter after 8 June 1415 (Listy Husovy, 1911)
English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Another Letter of John Huss to his Friends of Bohemia", in The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, vol. 3 (1837), edited by Stephen Reed Cattley
* "Letter 33, To his Friends", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 59, To his Friends in Constance", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (24 March 1415)

Bohumil Mareš dated the letter to 24 March 1415 (Listy Husovy, 1911)
English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 16, To John of Chlum", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 52, To his Friends", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (7 June 1415)

English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 31, John Huss's Reception by the Council", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 57, To his Friends staying on in Constance", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (4 January 1415)

Bohumil Mareš dated the letter to 4 January 1415 (Listy Husovy, 1911)
English-language translations of Přátelům svým v Kostnici include:
* "Letter 27, To John of Chlum", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 46, To his Friends at Constance", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
# Letter of Jan Hus to his friends (after 8 June 1415) (3)

The letter was addressed to Jan Hus’ Bohemian friends present in Constance, although some English editions suppose it was sent to his friends in Bohemia
English-language translations of Přátelům v Kostnici include:
* "From a Letter of John Huss to his Friends in Bohemia⁠", in The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, vol. 3 (1837), edited by Stephen Reed Cattley
* "To his friends", in Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment (1846), translated by John Campbell Mackenzie
* "Letter 63, To his Bohemian Friends", in The letters of John Hus (1904), translated by Robert Martin Pope
* "To his Bohemian friends" in The life & times of Master John Hus (1909), chapter 8, translated by František Lützow.
# Letters from India Volume I/To the Hon Mrs Eden 4

Government House, March 27, 1837,
My dearest Mary,—An officer who is going home in the ‘Robarts’ has just called to take leave, and he says a letter will overtake the ship which dropped down the river yesterday, and I am sure if he does, a letter may. I envied the old fellow. He is going home after thirty-two uninterrupted years of India, and is quite curious about Regent Street and the Zoological and all the old stories; and then he is not going home friendless, for, after having talked of rejoining his children there, he said, to my utter surprise, ‘I shall like to take my children abroad, and make acquaintance with them travelling, but I must first pass some time with my mother. I have not seen her for thirty-two years.’ ‘What a fine fat boy she will think you,’ I could hardly help saying.
My particular object in running off a line is to tell Robert that his protégé of a barber, whom he recommended to Mars, has been this very day engaged to be hairdresser and barber to the King of Oude, at a salary of four hundred ​rupees (40l.) per month, with presents to about the same amount and, if he becomes a favourite, the certainty of making his fortune. His predecessor, at the end of seven years, is now going home with thirteen or fourteen lacs of rupees. The chief objection to the place is, that the King takes particular delight in making all his courtiers drunk, remaining tolerably sober himself to enjoy the fun. Perry (is not that his name?) had been with Gattie, the great hairdresser here, for three months, at one hundred and fifty rupees per month, when Mars heard from some Frenchman that the King of Oude’s agent was looking for a coiffeur, and he went off with his protégé and presented him. The agent approved of his appearance and only wished to be sure of his skill, particularly in the shaving department, upon which Mars suggested a trial, and he and Perry went this morning and shaved the agent, who was quite satisfied, and the letter is gone to Lucknow to-day for the King’s ratification of the treaty. Perry’s journey to Lucknow is to be paid, and if either party is dissatisfied he is to be sent back here, free of expense, but the probability is that he will stay there and make a great fortune. Such an odd piece of luck! ​George said ten days ago, that the King of Oude wanted a coiffeur, and I said for a joke what an opportunity for Robert’s friend if we did but know where he was, not knowing that Mars was taking care of him all the time. I dare say the valet of the Governor-General is just the very man the King of Oude would approve of to choose his hairdresser.
Yours affectionately,
E. Eden.
# Letters from India Volume I/To the Hon and Rev Robert Eden 2

August 31, 1836.
My dearest Robert,—I am going to try an overland despatch to you, and there is just a danger that you will be overwhelmed with letters all at once—be like a babe in the wood, buried painfully with leaves, or sheets.
Fanny has written a long letter to Mary by the ‘Perfect,’ which sailed on Saturday (the 27th), and I also wrote to you. There was not much in it, except that I mentioned a small present I had sent Mary—a nest of Burmese boxes, and ​I should like her to give one of them to Willy. They are very common boxes, but the sort of thing she likes; and as Grindlay is particularly charged to pay all expenses of everything we send to you, I do not mind sending a small present. I could not afford a good one just now, as we are all utterly ruined by the wear and tear of the rainy season, which not only destroys everything we have in hand, but makes the very few things that are left in the market about four times the price they are in England; and yet, hot as it is, people expect us to go about dressed, so we must buy these bad, dear goods. The box of books, as we have told you in our ‘Perfect’ letter was very acceptable, but not half enough. ‘Many and often’ is the only rule about sending us books, for we cannot get them here at all. There is no occupation but reading for wretched imprisoned women in this country.
George is preparing a very pretty present for Mary from Moorshedabad, but it cannot be completed till the rains are over—so, mind! I have not mentioned it. I have not alluded to it—you can’t guess what I mean—I only know a secret, and as I thought you might think yourselves neglected in that box sent by the ‘Perfect’ ​I had a great mind to say what I knew, but I did not.
I hope you go on writing muchly. We consider your letters models; they are very popular, and George says they are some of the best we receive.
We are all quite well, which is much to our credit, for there never was such weather—so damp and hot. Fairy, ——’s little greyhound, had a shocking fit yesterday from mere heat, and, after an hour’s struggle for life, we called in Dr. Drummond, who bled her just like a lady, tied up her arm, and saved her.
God bless you dear, dearest Robert! and keep writing those good letters. How many children have you now? Best love to Mary, and if this arrives before the ‘Perfect,’ send it to —— ——. But they say it has no chance of arriving at all.
Your most affectionate
E. E.
# Letters from India Volume I/To the Hon and Rev Robert Eden 4

Government House, Sunday, February 26, 1837.
My dearest Robert,—I am only going to run off a line by candlelight, an unusual exertion in this country, but to-morrow at peep of day I am going up to Dumdum to prepare for a review, and the ‘Fergusson’ sails on Tuesday morning, and in that said ‘Fergusson’ there are two boxes addressed to you which Captain Young of the aforesaid ship has taken under his care, in one of which are a turban and slippers for Lena, such as the children wear here ​when they are smart, and which I bought the other day at the Burra Bazaar, at a stall where they are made, and some little caps which are regular native baby’s caps. My jemadar’s children wear them, so I sent them to yours, as, if they act plays, they will amuse them. In the other box there are Willy’s tiger and leopard-skins, which he wrote to George for; and, as Captain Young kindly offered to take the box gratis, I sent some of the Patna toys, which children live upon here, and which have the merit that they may suck them for ever and the paint does not come off. The elephant is an exact image of ours at Barrackpore, and the camel and man on it are very correct likenesses; but the originals are not common in Bengal, though we sometimes see them. There were two painted sticks to drag them by, but they would have made the box too large.
Yours most affectionately,
E.E.
There is a list in the box besides the direction on the parcel.
Think how horrible. It had been packed two days, and I undid it to write on the parcels, and found in it not only two cockroaches, which ​would have eaten up everything, but a centipede two inches long, which would have stung you horribly. Three of the servants gathered together before they dared kill it. They are very numerous here, but I suppose they would he stupefied in a cold climate.
# Letters from India Volume I/To the Hon and Rev Robert Eden 1

Funchal, Thursday, October 15, 1835.
My dearest Robert,—We arrived here on Tuesday, the 13th, exactly ten days after we left Portsmouth, and six days from the Lizard’s Point. The three last days we averaged 240 miles a day, and it is believed a most excellent passage. I have no doubt of it, but may I never know another!
Our captain is more than sailor enough to take us anywhere; he is quite wrapped up in his profession, works the ship himself, and even on shore is occupied the whole day in taking observations, &c. He seems a thoroughly scientific sailor. —— has set his heart on going to Penang, on our way from the Cape, and has coaxed the whole ship’s company into wishing it too; and now Captain Grey is occupied in proving that it will not take us more than seventy miles out of our course. As ​bad as 700 in that dear coach-and-four we last met in. But —— is mad to eat some mangosteens; he has collected all the descriptions of the fruit he can meet with, and runs on for ever about it. ‘It shows how little of self there is in me,’ he says, ‘for the angels are always allowed a little taste of mangosteen on Sundays, so I am sure of eating some at last, but many of you may never see it. I speak entirely for your sakes.’
We are staying here with a Mr. Stothard, a great wine merchant, in such a delicious house; such large high rooms, and so clean, and quite out of sight of the sea and the ‘Jupiter;’ and the man himself is really quite delightful. He makes us quite at home, and we have our palanquins at all hours, and ponies for going up the steep hills, and he ﬁnds us the best sketching places. I hope everybody will buy his wine.
George desires me to tell you, with his love, that he has bought a hogshead of Madeira for you, and is taking it with us to the East Indies, for the good of its health; so you will have it on the return of the ‘Jupiter,’ as good as wine can be, he hopes.
​We dine with the Portuguese governor to-day, and to-morrow have company at home, go on board after dinner, and get under weigh at one in the morning; and in about eleven days I shall be thrown overboard, for I am nearly transparent now with thinness, and never shall stand more than another ten days.
Keep writing, for mercy’s sake.
Your ever affectionate
E. E.