Katz v. United States

Citation18 L.Ed.2d 102,87 S.Ct. 1021,386 U.S. 954
Decision Date13 March 1967
Docket NumberNo. 895,895
PartiesCharles KATZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Burton Marks, for petitioner.

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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 cases
  • Katz v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 18 Diciembre 1967
    ...on that sporting event or contest is legal into a State in which such betting is legal.' 2 9 Cir., 369 F.2d 130, 134. 3 386 U.S. 954, 87 S.Ct. 1021, 18 L.Ed.2d 102. The petition for certiorari also challenged the validity of a warrant authorizing the search of the petitioner's premises. In ......
  • Sibron v. State of New York Peters v. State of New York
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1968
    ...... to have authorized violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). We noted ...Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943). 8 We have concluded that the case is not ......
  • Will v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • 13 Noviembre 1967
  • People v. Kaiser
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 7 Diciembre 1967
    ...entry, that is and should be proscribed and outlawed. (Cf. Katz v. United States, 9 Cir., 369 F.2d 130, cert. granted 386 U.S. 954, 87 S.Ct. 1021, 18 L.Ed.2d 102.) The Supreme Court found section 813--a to be constitutionally 'offensive' in at least four respects. First, it improperly autho......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT