Cell Phone Surveillance
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
The warrantless wiretapping of a public pay phone violates the unreasonable search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.
Legal landmarks have a lot to teach about contemporary issues. Katz v. United States is a Supreme Court decision made in 1967 that can stimulate discussion today about domestic surveillance, and even the use of cell phones in public places. Katz deals with wiretapping as it is used to provide evidence of a crime. The Supreme Court, for the most part, has not addressed the issue of whether or not the Katz standard is applicable to wiretaps undertaken for national security purposes, as opposed to criminal prosecution. Starting with the materials here, students can discuss how they would argue Katz if a wiretapped call were made from a cell phone, instead of a phone booth.
Current State of the Katz Decision
Although Justice Harlan proposed his two-pronged test in order to synthesize the majority holding so that it could be used in deciding future cases, it too has been the subject of much interpretation and debate. For instance, in the case of Ciallo v. California (1986), the Supreme Court decided that society was not prepared to recognize a privacy right-to grow a backyard crop of marijuana-that would have prohibited police from using a low-flying surveillance airplane to observe someone's garden without first getting a warrant.
Likewise, in the case of Smith v. Maryland (1979), the Court said that society was not prepared to extend privacy rights to bank customers regarding their bank statements. The court said the police did not have to get a search warrant before obtaining a customer's bank statements directly from the bank. The court decided that although the statements are about customers, banks-not customers-technically own the statements. However, after this decision, Congress enacted legislation requiring that police produce a search warrant to obtain a bank customer's account records.
Finally, the Katz decision deals only with wiretapping insofar as it is used to provide evidence of a crime. The Supreme Court has, for the most part, not addressed the issue of whether or not the Katz standard is applicable to wiretaps that are undertaken for national security, as opposed to criminal prosecution, purposes.