Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Katz v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1967 · Criminal Procedure

Fourth Amendmentreasonable expectation of privacywiretappingelectronic surveillancepublic telephone boothFourth Amendmentsearch and seizureelectronic eavesdropping

Facts

FBI agents attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of a public telephone booth that petitioner used to place calls. The agents overheard and recorded petitioner’s end of telephone conversations transmitting wagering information from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. The government introduced those recordings at trial over petitioner’s objection. The surveillance involved no physical penetration of the booth itself.

Issue

Does the Fourth Amendment apply to electronic listening and recording of a person’s words in a public telephone booth when the government does not physically penetrate the booth? If so, was the warrantless surveillance constitutional?

Rule

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public is not protected, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Electronic surveillance that violates privacy upon which a person justifiably relies constitutes a search and seizure, and absent prior judicial authorization such a search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within a specifically established and well-delineated exception.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, federal agents suspected Owen Price of coordinating illegal shipments by phone. Without entering the sidewalk kiosk where Owen stepped inside, closed the folding door, and used the handset, agents placed a microphone on the kiosk's exterior roof and recorded his side of the call.

Did the agents' conduct most likely constitute a search and seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

Explanation. The majority held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What matters is whether the person sought to preserve something as private, even in an area accessible to the public. Electronic listening to words uttered in circumstances justifying reliance on privacy is a search and seizure, and physical penetration is not constitutionally significant.