Katz v United Katz v United States (1967)States (1967)By Timothy VoBy Timothy Vo

Constitutional IssueConstitutional Issue

Violation of fourth amendmentViolation of fourth amendment

Litigants Katz, United statesLitigants Katz, United states

Fourth amendment protect people from Fourth amendment protect people from unreasonable search and seizuresunreasonable search and seizures

Litigant of CaseLitigant of Case

Charles KatzCharles Katz

United StatesUnited States

Background informationBackground information

Charles Katz was convicted in California of Charles Katz was convicted in California of illegal gamblingillegal gambling

Majority opinionMajority opinion

Unreasonable search and seizuresUnreasonable search and seizures

Forth amendment to protect peopleForth amendment to protect people

A warrant is need to do a wiretapA warrant is need to do a wiretap

Court opinionsCourt opinions

Hugo black argued that fourth amendment Hugo black argued that fourth amendment to protect things from physical search to protect things from physical search and seizuresand seizures

SignificanceSignificance

Preventing criminal suspectPreventing criminal suspect

Police needing a wiretapPolice needing a wiretap

ReflectionReflection

They should need a warrant because a They should need a warrant because a criminal might use your phone to make a criminal might use your phone to make a phone call getting you into troublephone call getting you into trouble

ResourcesResources

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.htmlics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_v._United_StatesKatz_v._United_States