Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
Privacy issues remain one of the key issues in criminal law and entire legal justice system. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) is one of the famous cases that highlights the nature of the right to privacy and provides legal definition of a legal search. The court’s ruling refined the former definition of the legal search and legal seizure clauses of the Fourth Amendment to consider infringement with any kind of communication technology as a search (Brandon Garrett, The right to privacy (Rosen Pub. Group) (2001)
(Garrett, 2001). The facts of the case were acting on the suspicion that Katz transmitted crucial gambling information over the phone to clients in other states. FBI agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public device to the booth used by Katz (Court, University Publications of America. (1975) .Based on his conversation the evidence was incriminating, and his coded language was easy to understand as the chatter of a regular gambler, and it would be difficult to avoid conviction.
The accused was convicted under an eight-count denunciation for illegal communication of important information from Los Angeles to other states. On his appeal, he claimed that the FBI’s surveillance of the phone booth was against his constitutional rights and decades of Supreme Court precedent. The Courts of Appeals rejected this point indicating the absence of physical intrusion into the phone booth itself. Justice Stewart majority opinion upheld the court could constitutionally have sanctioned the wiretap in this case but since such a demand was not considered the search was deemed unconstitutional. The court ruled that he was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversation and that the physical intrusion into the area he occupied does not require bringing the amendment into play. Justice Stewart insisted that The Fourth Amendment protect people, not places. This case made the government interception of communication by both the state and federal government subject to the Fourth amendment’s warrant requirement, and regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the fourth amendment (Johnny H Killian et al., The Constitution of the United States of America (U.S. G.P.O.) (2004)
United States v Jones
Jones, who was the respondent, in this case, was an owner of a nightclub and was under suspicion of narcotics trafficking. According to the information gathered from various investigative techniques, the agents were granted a warrant accepting the use of GPS tracking device on Jones’ wife’s car but failed to comply with the deadline of the order. The jeep got installed with the instrument, and it tracked the vehicles movement and communication. The agents obtained an indictment against Jones that included charges of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The center for democracy and technology applied for an amicus brief arguing that GPS tracking is invasive and entirely different from the other surveillance technologies authorized by the courts before.
The use of GPS by the agents without a warrant violates the right of privacy. Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about the failure of the Fourth Amendment law to keep up with the reality of the current digital technologies. Justice Scalia was persuasive in Jones case she cited the case as a physical intrusion and trespass into an area protected by the constitution. The attempt to obtain information was the basis of whether a search had occurred under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Scalia emphasized that the Fourth Amendment should provide the level of protection as it did when adopted
Bibliography
Court., U. S. (1975). Katz v. United States (1967) ; Cameron v. Johnson (1968) ; Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968) ; United States v. O'Brien (1968). Bethesda, Md. : University Publications of America.
Garrett, B. ( 2001.). The right to privacy. New York : Rosen Pub. Group,.
Johnny H Killian, George Costello & Kenneth R Thomas, The Constitution of the United States of America (2004).
