Katz v. United States
Citation | 18 L.Ed.2d 102,87 S.Ct. 1021,386 U.S. 954 |
Decision Date | 13 March 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 895,895 |
Parties | Charles KATZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES |
Court | United 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.
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-
Katz v. United States
...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
...... 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
-
People v. Kaiser
...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......