Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Katz Vs. U.S.

Katz vs U.S.

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1967
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/101816

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
US Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number
386 U.S. 954
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Katz

Respondent

U.S.

Excerpt

katz v. u.s. - 386 u.s. 954 (1967) u.s. supreme court katz v. u.s. , 386 u.s. 954 (1967) 386 u.s. 954 charles katz, petitioner, v. united states. no. 895. supreme court of the united states march 13, 1967 burton marks, for petitioner. solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general vinson and beatrice rosenberg, for the united states. petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit granted limited to questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows: '1. whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the petitioner is page 386 u.s. 954 , 955 obtained in violation of the fourth amendment to the united states constitution. a. whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area so that evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth. b. whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary before a search and seizure can be said to be violative of the fourth amendment to the united states constitution. '2. whether the search warrant used by the federal officers in the instant case violated the fourth amendment to the united states constitution in that said warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; ( b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant.' the court also wishes counsel to brief and present oral argument on the holding in frank v. united states, 120 u.s.app.d.c. 392, 347 f.2d 486 as it may affect this case.

Full Judgment

KATZ v. U.S. - 386 U.S. 954 (1967)
U.S. Supreme Court KATZ v. U.S. , 386 U.S. 954 (1967)

386 U.S. 954

Charles KATZ, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 895.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 13, 1967

Burton Marks, for petitioner.

Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:

    '1. Whether evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening and recording device to the top of a public telephone booth used and occupied by the Petitioner is

Page 386 U.S. 954 , 955

obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A. Whether a public telephone booth is a constitutionally protected area so that evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a booth is obtained in violation of the right to privacy of the user of the booth.

B. Whether physical penetration of a constitutionally protected area is necessary before a search and seizure can be said to be violative of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    '2. Whether the search warrant used by the Federal Officers in the instant case violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that said warrant was (a) not founded on probable cause; ( b) an evidentiary search warrant and (c) a general search warrant.'

The Court also wishes counsel to brief and present oral argument on the holding in Frank v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 347 F.2d 486 as it may affect this case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial