even though the evidence is there katz has a right to the fourth amendment . his conversation was private hs's innocent
this violates my forth amendment. because the booth is a private place to make calls.
no because the fourth amendment protect people not places
it's also a public as everyone can see you.
context Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a phone booth to listen in on his conversations about gambling information. Katz then challenged his conviction and said the recordings violated his 4th amendment right.
controversy That they said that it protects people not places but the phone booth is a public place and a private place.
court ruling The Court ruled that Katz was entitled to Fourth Amendment protection for his conversations and that a physical intrusion into the area he occupied was unnecessary to bring the Amendment into play.
Did the outcome of this case influence federal, state or local laws and/or policies?
In a time of growing digital technology, the fact that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places is more important than ever.