LS305-01 Constitutional Law Unit 4 assignment

Fourth amendment to apply as a viable defense in

Info icon This preview shows pages 2–4. Sign up to view the full content.

Fourth Amendment to apply as a viable defense in cases where there had been no official search and seizure of the person, his papers, tangible material effects, or an actual physical invasion of property. Taft concludes that such wiretapping as occurred in this case did not amount to a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Image of page 2

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

LS305-01 Constitutional Law Unit 4 assignment Justice Harlan in the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) made government wiretapping by both state and federal authorities subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements. Also, Justice Harlan built an opinion upon the foundations of the majority opinion and formulated the “reasonable expectation” test for determining whether government activity constitutes a search. Harlan's test, not the majority opinion, is the most common formulation cited by courts. The “reasonable expectation” test was arranged into a two prong test for determining the existence of privacy: If (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and if (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable, then there is a right of privacy in the given circumstance. This test was adopted by the majority in Smith v. Maryland. The ruling in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) was that; "The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment." (Justice Stewart) Regardless of the location, a conversation is protected from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment if it is made with a “reasonable expectation of privacy”. In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) the majority opinion was that wiretapping counts as a search (physical intrusion is not necessary).
Image of page 3
LS305-01 Constitutional Law Unit 4 assignment REFERENCES: Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '12
  • Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Chief Justice Taft, Constitutional Law Unit, LS305-01 Constitutional Law

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern