Right to Privacy:
Defendant was convicted of transmitting wagering information by telephone in violation of a federal statute. At the trial, the government was permitted, over defendant's objection, to introduce evidence of defendant's end of telephone conversations, which was overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the public telephone booth where he had placed his calls. A court of appeals, in affirming his conviction, rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of U.S. Const. amend. IV because there was no physical entrance into the area occupied by defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that a person in a telephone booth could rely upon the protection of U.S. Const. amend. IV. One who occupied a telephone booth, shut the door behind him, and paid the toll that permitted him to place a call was entitled to assume that the words he uttered into the mouthpiece would not be broadcast to the world. The Court determined that the government agents ignored the procedure of antecedent justification, which was a constitutional precondition of the kind of electronic surveillance involved in the case. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Main Point - The 4th Amendment protects from search and seizure if the circumstances create a justifiable expectation of privacy, regardless of whether an actual physical trespass occurred.
The case names are links to the cases in Google Scholar which is a free source. Clicking on the case name will take you directly to the case in the current window or another option is right clicking and choosing to open in a new tab or window.
· Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)
· Olmstead v. United States, 277 US 438 (1928)
· Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961)
· Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443 (1971)
· Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
