Katz+v.+United+States

Katz then appealed his sentence arguing that the recordings gathered could not be used for evidence against him because there was no warrant issued. The court then did rule that Katz was protected under the fourth amendment. The physical intrution wasn't necessary to bring the amendment into play.
 * Background Information:** Katz was suspected of sharing gambling information through the phone to other clients out of state. The federal agents then hooked up an eavesdropping device to a public phone booth used by Katz to convict him, acting on suspicion. From the recordings of the conversations Katz was then convicted for transmitting wagering information from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston.

Katz was under the protection of the fourth amendment, even though he was in a public phone booth. "The fourth amendment protects people, not places." (Justice Potter Stewart) So the indivisuals may not be violated, even if they are in a phone booth, or in their own house. You must have a warrent before you can wiretap a conversation from phone to phone.

The prosecution used a previous court case that was viewed in 1928 to argue that by placing a phone tap outside his home in a public phone booth was not in violation of the 4th amendment. In the 1928 court case Olmstead v United States they allowed the federal government to wiretap and use surveillance as long as the persons actions outside of their home did not infringe on their 4th amendment rights. 

Majority said that he was protected under the 4th amendment because it protects the privacy of an individual person. The minority said that since the phone booth was open to the public so it was not in violation the amendment.
 * Decisions**: 7 voted for Katz and 1 voted against.

Fourth Amendment Cases