Document: 389 U.S. 347 88 S.Ct. 507 19 L.Ed.2d 576 Charles KATZ, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 35. Argued Oct. 17, 1967. Decided Dec. 18, Harvey A. Schneider and Burton Marks, Beverly Hills, Cal., for petitioner. John S. Martin, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner was convicted in District Court Southern California under an eight-count indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami Boston violation a federal statute.1 At trial Government permitted, over petitioner's objection, introduce evidence end coversations, overheard FBI agents who had attached electronic listening recording device outside public booth which he placed his calls. In affirming conviction, Appeals rejected contention that recordings been obtained Fourth Amendment, because '(t)here no physical entrance into area occupied by, (the petitioner).'2 We granted certiorari order consider constitutional questions thus presented.3 2 phrased those as follows: 3 'A. Whether is constitutionally protected so attaching top such right privacy user booth. 4 'B. penetration necessary before search seizure can be said violative Amendment United States Constitution.' 5 decline adopt this formulation issues. first place correct solution problems not necessarily promoted incantation phrase 'constitutionally area.' Secondly, cannot translated general 'right privacy.' That protects individual against certain kinds governmental intrusion, but its protections go further, often have nothing do at all.4 Other provisions Constitution protect personal other forms invasion.5 But protection person's privacy—his let alone people6—is, like property very life, left largely law States.7 6 Because misleading way issues formulated, parties great significance characterization has strenuously argued maintained equal vigor it not.8 effort decide whether or given 'area,' viewed abstract, protected' deflects attention problem presented case.9 For people, places. What person knowingly exposes public, even own home office, subject protection. See Lewis v. States, 385 206, 210, 87 424, 427, 17 312; Lee, 274 559, 563, 47 746, 748, 71 L.Ed. 1202. what seeks preserve private, accessible may protected. Rios 364 253, 80 1431, 1688; Ex parte Jackson, 96 727, 733, 24 877. 7 stresses fact made calls constructed partly glass, visible after entered would if remained outside. sought exclude when intruding eye—it uninvited ear. He did shed simply where might seen. No less than business office,10 friend's apartment,11 taxicab,12 rely upon Amendment. One occupies it, shuts door behind him, pays toll permits call surely entitled assume words utters mouthpiece will broadcast world. To read more narrowly ignore vital role come play private communication. 8 contends, however, tha activities case should tested requirements, surveillance technique they employed involved It true absence one time thought foreclose further inquiry, Olmstead 277 438, 457, 464, 466, 48 564, 565, 567, 568, 72 944; Goldman 316 129, 134—136, 62 993, 995—997, 86 1322, limit only searches seizures tangible property.13 '(t)he premise interests control seize discredited.' Warden, Md. Penitentiary Hayden, 387 294, 304, 1642, 1648, 18 782. Thus, although closely divided supposed without any trespass material object fell ambit Constitution, we since departed narrow view on decision rested. Indeed, expressly held governs items, extends well oral statements 'technical * local law.' Silverman 365 505, 511, 81 679, 682, 734. Once much acknowledged, once recognized people 'areas'—against unreasonable becomes clear reach trun presence intrusion enclosure. 9 conclude underpinnings eroded our subsequent decisions 'trespass' doctrine there enunciated longer regarded controlling. Government's electronically violated justifiably relied while using constituted 'search seizure' within meaning achieve happen penetrate wall significance. 10 question remaining decision, then, conducted complied standards. regard, position acted entirely defensible manner: They begin their until investigation established strong probability transmit gambling persons law. Moreover, limited, both scope duration, specific purpose establishing contents unlawful telephonic communications. confined brief periods during used booth,14 took care overhear conversations himself.15 11 Accepting account actions acccurate, circumscribed duly authorized magistrate, properly notified need investigation, specifically informed basis proceed, clearly apprised precise entail, could authorized, appropriate safeguards, limited asserts place. Only last Term sustained validity authorization, holding that, sufficiently 'precise discriminate circumstances,' court empower government employ concealed 'for particularized ascertaining truth allegations' 'detailed factual affidavit alleging commission criminal offense.' Osborn 323, 329—330, 429, 433, 394. Discussing holding, Berger State New York, 388 41, 1873, 1040, 'the authorizing use device' 'afforded similar conventional warrants evidence.' Through protections, 'no greater invasion permitted circumstances.' Id., 57, 1882.16 Here, too, judicial accommodated legitimate needs enforcement'17 carefully surveillance. 12 urges Goldman, here done prior sanction, retroactively validate conduct. do. apparent restraint. Yet inescapable restraint imposed themselves, officer. were required, commencing search, present estimate probable cause detached scrutiny neutral magistrate. compelled, conduct itself, observe limits advance order. Nor directed, completed, notify magistrate detail all seized. never sole ground officers reasonably expected find particular crime voluntarily least intrusive means consistent end. Searches 'notwithstanding facts unquestionably showing cause,' Agnello 269 20, 33, 46 4, 6, 70 145, requires 'that deliberate, impartial judgment officer interposed between citizen police *.' Wong Sun 371 471, 481—482, 83 407, 414, 441. 'Over again emphasized mandate (Fourth) adherence processes,' Jeffers, 342 48, 51, 93, 95, 59, process, approval judge are per se Amendment18—subject few well-delineated exceptions.19 13 difficult imagine how exceptions ever apply sort case. Even substantially contemporaneous individual's arrest hardly deemed 'incident' arrest.20 autorization justified grounds 'hot pursuit.'21 And, course, nature precludes pursuant suspect's consent.22 14 does these basic principles. Rather, creation new exception cover case.23 argues exempted usual requirement authorization cause. agree. Omission 15 'bypasses safeguards provided objective predetermination cause, substitutes instead far reliable procedure after-the-event justification too likely subtly influenced familiar shortcomings hindsight judgment.' Beck Ohio, 379 89, 96, 85S.Ct. 223, 228, 142. 16 And bypassing leaves individuals secure violations 'only discretion police.' 97, 85 229. These considerations vanish transferred setting home, hotel room Wherever man be, know remain free seizures. ignored antecedent central Amendment,'24 hold precondition kind failed meet condition, led must reversed. ordered. Judgment 20 Mr. Justice MARSHALL part consideration 21 DOUGLAS, whom BRENNAN joins, concurring. 22 While I join Court, feel compelled reply separate concurring my Brother WHITE, wholly unwarranted green light Executive Branch resort eavesdropping warrant cases itself labels 'national security' matters. 23 Neither President nor Attorney General matters believe national security detached, disinterested, be. Under separation powers created disinterested. Rather vigorously investigate prevent breaches prosecute violate pertinent laws. interested parties, cast adversary, cases. intended victims subversive action. Since spies saboteurs suspected gamblers petitioner, agree adequate rights assured adversary-and-prosecutor There is, understand history, distinction types crimes. Article III, § 3, gives 'treason' definition puts restrictions proof. draws lines various substantive offenses. arrests pursuit' cut across board peculiar crime. 25 respect improvise seems particularly heinous. When Framers step, treason, worst all, manifest. 26 HARLAN, 27 (a) enclosed where, Weeks 232 383, 34 341, 58 652, unlike field, Hester 265 44 445, 68 898, reasonable expectation privacy; (b) sense constitute Amendment; (c) authorities long held, presumptively warrant. 28 As Court's states, places.' question, affords people. Generally, here, answer reference 'place.' My understanding rule emerged twofold requirement, exhibited actual (subjective) and, second, society prepared recognize 'reasonable.' Thus man's most purposes, expects privacy, objects, activities, 'plain view' outsiders 'protected' intention keep them himself exhibited. On hand, open being overheard, circumstances unreasonable. Cf. supra. 29 critical '(o)ne (a booth) assume' conversation intercepted. Ante, 352. point 'accessible public' times, ante, 351, temporarily whose momentary occupants' expectations freedom reasonable. 1688. 30 734, hedl accomplished penetrated premises interception seizure,' examination taking required. This followed v.United 485, 416, 441, 1879, 1040. Also compare Osborne 327, 431, found unnecessary re-examine us reconsider now overruled.* Its limitation day, bad physics law, defeated invasion. 31 Finally, declare one-half occurs elsewhere rule, enforcement demand exceptios. enough occasion presents one. 32 33 official subjected test reasonableness record undertaken absent it. application interfere enforcement.** joining opinion, note asknowledgment circumstance connection, footnote points out today's Wiretapping Nation successive Presidents. Administration apparently save wiretapping. 112—118, 1911—1914, 1040 (1967) (White, J., dissenting). require magistrate's chief legal officer, General, considered requirements 35 BLACK, dissenting. 36 If carried (equivalent wiretapping) constitutes 'search' 'seizure,' happy opinion. sets methods accord guide enactment laws passed regulate wiretapping government. differs sharply v.State decided Term, void face York statute issued magistrates showings also set up appeared insuperable obstacles valid passage States. case, removes doubts about state power field abates large extent confusion near-paralyzing effect holding. Notwithstanding good efforts am still unable interpretation 37 objection twofold: (1) bear (2) proper rewrite 'to bring harmony times' result many desirable. 38 realize argument based lacks scope, doubt appeal, broad policy discussions philosophical discourses nebulous subjects me language crucial look construing written document Constitution. says 39 'The persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures, shall violated, Warrants issue, supported Oath affirmation, describing searched, things seized.' 40 clause 'persons, connote idea size, form, weight, capable seized, both. second establishes Framers' providing issue 'particularly A eavesdropping, plain snooping wiretapping, normally accepted meanings words, neither searched addition indicates refers something seized already existence described. overhearing future nonexistent take How 'describe' conversation, cannot, eavesdrop future? sufficient boundaries later admitted evidence; really describing'? completely artificial way, eavesdropping. 41 Tapping wires, unknown possibility adopted. (and telephone) was, majority Berger, supra, recognized, 'an ancient practice common condemned nuisance. IV Blackstone, Commentaries 168. days eavesdropper listened naked ear eaves houses windows, beyond walls seeking discourse.' U.S., 45, S.Ct., 1876. aware practice, desired outlaw restrict certainly task ingenuity language-stretching judges. one, me, debates Bill Rights reaching conclusion critics knew used, understood mean others, limitations. strikes charge scholarship, candor give Amendment's imputes today. 42 deny Rights' liberal construction. principle, justify amendment applying 'seizure' conversations. aimed directly abhorred breaking in, ransacking searching homes buildings seizing people's belongings magistrates. deserves, construction warrantless effects. today refused say comes restrictions. See, e.g., 944 (1928), 1322 (1942). 43 So attempted why think important show traditional adoption along amorphous marks real departure view. actually clear-cut applicability through wiretap Olmstead, speaking Chief Taft, examined found, just now, stretched encompass conversations: 45 shows things—the person, house, description make proceeding lawful specify 'Justice Bradley Boyd (Boyd 116 616, 524, 746), Clarke Gouled (Gouled 255 298, 261, 65 647), Fifth liberally construed framers interest liberty. enlargement possible practical forbid hearing sight.' 464—465, 568. clearer example refusal covered detectaphone, adjoining room, listen defendant office four room. referring violation. noted squarely shown, cited quotation theCourt went pains examine determinative factor, indeed citing indicated automatically 'hearing characterized testimony two trespassed defendant's land, themselves 100 yards away saw hand bottle whiskey another, inadmissible. trespass, effects.' 465, cases, undiluted original modern forms, 49 reading convinces inapplicability wording basis, unauthorized played adopted exclusionary bar intrusions. dissenting 76, 1892, continue formulated rests 'supervisory power' courts rooted Wolf People Colorado, 338 25, 39, 40, 69 1359, 1367, 1368, 93 1782. Mapp 367 643, 661—666, 1684, 1694—1698, 1081. caused refuse accept regardless Lopez 373 438—439, 1381, 1387, 462, past instances 'electronic eavesdropping' challenge, devices enable human (citing Goldman). insisted planted area. States.' 50 support amounts rewriting language, concludes accomplishing 'eroding' 'eroded' Goldman. interestng choice rationale re-examination urged petitioners' counsel. significant Silverman, described petitioners,' 509, 681, calling supervisory evidence. pointed above, admission unconstitutional seizure. majority's relies heavily statement 'need pause technical relating party walls.' (At 682.) becloud emphasizes intrusion: 'For fair petitioners.' (365 682 emphasis added.) 'Eavesdropping pale 'Here usurping house '(D)ecision reality 512, 683, 'We fraction inch.' enough, Justices Clark Whittaker concurred following statement: 'In determination remove coverage earlier decisions, obliged opinion.' 513, 684, dissent excluded virtue 'I agreed depended finding 79—80, 1894. overturning stated plainly 51 appears proposition applies 'intangibles,' ambiguous quoted opinion: 1648. concerned Hayden upholds clothes, tangibles definition. discussion common-law proof superior interest. 52 attempts convey impression some reason overruled 'eroded.' opinions 1791, adopted, declared 'seized.'* align myself judges year able impute 53 see closes matter me. interpreting Rights, willingly takes conscience ordinary usage. distort 'keep date' times.' meant power, continuously functioning convention. 54 With hope, started recently began incessantly privacy. By clever word juggling finds plausible argue may, applied eavesdropped Few affect another. arbitrarily substituting designed Constitution's vehicle offend broadest concept Griswold Connecticut, 381 479, 1678, 510, talks privacy' though provision forbidding abridge 'privacy' individuals. not.' (Dissenting 508, 1695.) fear dangers uses 'broad, abstract concept' 'comprehensive substitute guarantee 'unreasonable seizures." (See generally 507—527, 1694—1705.) 55 prohibits unlimited everything affects Certainly Framers, acquainted excesses intend grant omnipotent lawmaking authority that. history governments proves dangerous repose courts. 56 reasons respectfully dissent. U.S.C. 1084. provides part: '(a) Whoever engaged betting wire communication facility transmission interstate foreign commerce bets wagers assisting placing sporting event contest, entitles recipient receive money credit wagers, fined $10,000 inprisoned years, '(b) Nothing section news reporting events contests, contest legal.' Cir., 369 F.2d 130, 134. 386 954, 1021, 102. petition challenged premises. disposition nto issue. merit suggestion dismissed. After conviction affirmed Appeals, testified grand jury concerning charges here. testify immunity, Stat. 1096, amended, 409(l), fruit trial. asks more. contends vacated dismissed lest 'subjected penalty (was) 409(l). Frank 120 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 486. disagree. relevant part, 409(l) repeats Compulsory Testimony Act 1893, 443, 46, Congress' response immunity supplant privilege self-incrimination prosecution conviction. Counselman Hitchcock, 142 547, 585—586, 195, 206 207, 1110. statutory provide protection, Brown 359 45—46, 79 539, 543—544, 609, confer punishment adjudication guilt. Reina 507, 513—514, 260, 264—265, 249. average feelings soothed having openly privately stealth. much, more, irritated, annoyed injured unceremonious policeman home.' 1695, 510 (dissenting BLACK). First example, imposes limitations govermental abridgment 'freedom associate one's associations.' NAACP Alabama, 357 449, 78 1163, 1172, 1488. Third prohibition unconsented peacetime quartering soldiers another aspect intrusion. extent, 'reflects concern '* each enclave lead life.'" Tehan ex rel. Shott, 382 406, 459, 453. Virtually every action interferes degree. interference violates command Warren & Brandeis, Right Privacy, Harv.L.Rev. 193 (1890). Time, Inc. Hill, 374, 534, 456. Breard City Alexandria, 341 622, 920, 95 1233; Kovacs Cooper, 336 77, 448, 513. respective claims, compiled competing lists 'protected areas' consideration. area, not. 898. Defending inclusion list cites Stone, F.Supp. 396, Madison, L.W. 2243 (D.C.Ct.Gen.Sess.). Urging excluded, Borgese, 235 286. occasionally conclusions terms areas,' see, 734; 1387—1388, 462; 1882, 1883, suggested serve talismanic problem. Silverthorne Lumber Co. 251 385, 182, 64 319. Jones 362 257, 725, 697. 464—466, 567—569, 944. deal detention r Based previous visual observations correctly predicted several minutes approximately same morning. predetermined period. Six recordings, averaging three each, preserved converning receipt information. single inadvertently intercepted, refrained them. Although afforded 'similar warrants,' identical. ordinarily serves suspect search. told conversations, making obviously lost; obtained. omitting notice, autorized announce conducting otherwise announcement provoke escape destruction Ker California, 374 23, 37—41, 1623, 1631—1634, 726. 'exception notice exigent present,' id., 1633, inapplicable enter occupants present, 55—58, 1640—1642 (opinion BRENNAN), bearing However '(i)nnocent citizens suffer shock, fright embarrassment attendant unannounced intrusion,' awareness minimize hazards officers' calling,' 57—58, judicially Federal Rules Criminal Procedure impose inflexible notice. Rule 41(d) copy obtained, invariably Nordelli 665, 666 667. unaware transcribed sustaining sanctioned lawful. 1882. 1401, 462 BRENNAN). 493, 497—499, 1253, 1256—1257, 1514; 1436, Chapman 610, 613—615, 776, 778, 779, 828; Stoner 376 483, 486—487, 84 889, 891—892, 856. Carroll 267 132, 153, 156, 280, 285, 286, 543; McDonald 335 451, 454—456, 191, 192—194, 153; Brinegar 160, 174—177, 1302, 1310—1312, 1879; Cooper 58, 788, 730; Warden 298—300, 1645—1647, 30, 5, stated: contemporaneously lawfully arrested committing connected fruits ar committed, weapons custody doubted.' Whatever long-standing proofs guilt accused arrest,' Rabinowitz, 339 56, 61, 430, 94 653; cf. 71—79, 437—441 Frankfurter), 'incidental' readily extended include surreptitious either immediately before, after, arrest. delay course gravely endanger lives others,' 298—299, 1646, 782, little likelihood realistic situation fraught urgency. consents meets Zap 328 624, 66 1277, 90 1477, usefulness depends lack suspect.' 463, satisfy involving 330, development evinced Sun, overruling 944, essentially rested coversations ** undisturbed upheld, undercover agent speaks knowledge police, Hoffa 293, 408, (1966); hidden informant, (1963); 394 (3) secret micro-wave transmissions coversing location, Lee 343 747, 967, 1270 (1952). risks inherent doing, including risk heard. unreliable (or law-abiding) associates. logical extension principle hearer, memorize hears verbatim repetitions, deals different situation, 'sought ear,' spoke ears listening. paragraph HARLAN's susceptible interpretation, probably intended, 'has held' therefore 'presumptively warrant.' line citation establish historical proposition. place, thing; 1961. whatever (been) held.' HARLAN recognizes admits overrule adopts today, promulgating merely claim 'bad physics' adhere Such assertion illustrates propensity members scientific fit times tolerate.

Category: 0