Talk:Katz v. United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
>Charles Katz was convicted in California of illegal gambling. >He had used a public pay phone booth in Los Angeles to place bets in Miami and Boston. >Unbeknownst to him, the FBI had attached an electronic eavesdropping device to the phone
I don't get it. The FBI is a US federal body, so it obviously cannot be used to persecute violators of state-created laws? That would be a gross abuse of power. Hoover stated it clearly that the FBI is NOT the american national police. Why wasn't the case thrown out over this issue with unadmissible source of evidence in the first place? Then there would be no reason to argue about the constitution at all. 195.70.32.136 12:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The law in question was a Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1084, against transmitting wagering information across state lines. The inter-state nature of the crime gives the Federal government jurisdiction. 160.39.194.221 09:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If the law was a federal law because of interstate commerce, the FBI has jurisdiction in California to moniter Mr. Katz. Katz set precedent which today is used to challange the consitutionality of the Presidents use of wiretaps on American citizen's. The Courts decision looked at Griswolds Test of determining 1) whether the individual reasonable expected was private and 2) what society thinks about that expectation.
[edit] 'Can' vs 'must'
I was initially confused by the following:
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places. Therefore, the rights of an individual cannot be violated, regardless of whether or not there is physical intrusion into any given area.
After reading it over, I understood it as "Therefore, the rights of an individual must not be violated..." However, IANAL, and I don't want to screw around with what might be precise legal wording. Anyone? Bgruber 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
