1. Library
  2. Cases
  3. Katz
Supreme Court of the United States

Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347Decided December 18, 1967

Read the full opinion on CourtListener · The case as printed (Library of Congress)

Syllabus

The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions and is not part of the opinion of the Court. It is shown as printed in the United States Reports, read from the text layer of the Library of Congress scan (optical character recognition in older volumes, not yet checked word by word against the page).

1: Katz v. United States, syllabus ¶ 1 (Case.107564.syllabus.1)

Petitioner was convicted under an indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1084. Evidence of petitioner's end of the conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the telephone booth from which the calls were made, was introduced at the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation since there was "no physical entrance into the area occupied by" petitioner. Held:

2: Katz v. United States, syllabus ¶ 2 (Case.107564.syllabus.2)

1. The Government's eavesdropping activities violated the privacy upon which petitioner justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a "search and seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 350-353.

3: Katz v. United States, syllabus ¶ 3 (Case.107564.syllabus.3)

(a) The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as well to the recording of oral statements. Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511. P. 353.

4: Katz v. United States, syllabus ¶ 4 (Case.107564.syllabus.4)

(b) Because the Fourth Amendment protects people rather than places, its reach cannot turn on the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure. The "trespass" doctrine of Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, and Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129, is no longer controlling. Pp. 351, 353.

5: Katz v. United States, syllabus ¶ 5 (Case.107564.syllabus.5)

2. Although the surveillance in this case may have been so narrowly circumscribed that it could constitutionally have been authorized in advance, it was not in fact conducted pursuant to the warrant procedure which is a constitutional precondition of such electronic surveillance. Pp. 354-359.

Provisions

The Constitution Annotated's essays on these provisions cite this case.

Overrules

Why it is here

The library's first set of cases is chosen by fixed rules from the Constitution Annotated (2022), which cites this case as “Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)”:

  • cited on 11 pages

How cases are chosen and imported

Connections graph

Enter all results↑ ↓ then Enter to open oneTry “Federalist 51”, “Article I, Section 8”, “Amendment 14”

Where you've been

    The places you have read, newest first, kept in this browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere.