KATZ
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted certiorari to review specific constitutional questions regarding electronic surveillance and search warrants.
The case involves evidence obtained by attaching an electronic listening device to a public telephone booth and the use of a search warrant by federal…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Electronic Surveillance cases and more on FLexlaw
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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 obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the - United States Constitution.
Burton Marks for petitioner. Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.
“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, 347 F. 2d 486, as it may affect this case.