Katz v. United States
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Katz_v._United_States an entity of type: Thing
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects", as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Katz v. United States
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Charles Katz v. United States
xsd:integer
1845377
xsd:integer
1124718174
rdf:langString
Black
rdf:langString
Warren, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, White, Fortas
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
347
xsd:integer
389
xsd:gMonthDay
--10-17
xsd:integer
1967
rdf:langString
Katz v. United States,
xsd:gMonthDay
--12-18
xsd:integer
1967
rdf:langString
Charles Katz v. United States
rdf:langString
The Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and seizure extends to any area where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
rdf:langString
Katz v. United States
rdf:langString
Stewart
rdf:langString
Katz, 389 U.S. at 353
rdf:langString
Katz, 398 U.S. at 361
rdf:langString
Katz, 389 U.S. at 352 [footnotes and citations omitted]
rdf:langString
The petitioner [Katz] has strenuously argued that the booth was a "constitutionally protected area". The Government has maintained with equal vigor that it was not. But this effort to decide whether or not a given "area", viewed in the abstract, is "constitutionally protected" deflects attention from the problem presented by this case. For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.
rdf:langString
My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable". Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected" because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable.
rdf:langString
We conclude that the underpinnings of Olmstead [and similar cases] have been so eroded by our subsequent decisions that the "trespass" doctrine there enunciated can no longer be regarded as controlling. The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy on which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
rdf:langString
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects", as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II. The Katz test has since been used in numerous cases, particularly because of technological advances that create new questions about privacy norms and government surveillance of personal data.
rdf:langString
Douglas
rdf:langString
White
rdf:langString
Harlan
rdf:langString
Brennan
rdf:langString
Marshall
rdf:langString
Olmstead v. United States
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
18281
