In 1967, while Charles Katz stepped into a public telephone booth and made illegal gambling bets, two FBI agents put listening and recording devices on the booth without a search warrant, violating his right to privacy. Although his fourth amendment rights were violated, the lower courts still took the unwarranted evidence into account. One would wonder, how technology has complicated the law. This historical investigation will address the question, how did the branches of government respond to the challenge of protecting privacy with technological advancement in the Katz v. United States case? In order to answer this question, an understanding of the fourth amendment must be achieved. It will then be essential to investigate the Supreme Court’s …show more content…
Congress enacted title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which established procedures for getting electronic surveillance warrants (Joh).
The wiretapping act prevented nonconsensual tapping of wire, oral, or electronic communications (“Omnibus Crime Control”).
The wiretapping act established procedures for obtaining warrants for electronic surveillance (“Omnibus Crime Control”).
The wiretapping act regulated the disclosure of evidence by law enforcement (“Omnibus Crime Control”).
The wiretapping act checked the executive branch except in emergency situations such as immediate danger of death or serious injury to any person, threating national security, and if it has to do with conspiratorial activities like organized crime (“Omnibus Crime Control”).
Congress amended the fourth amendment with the ability for judges to give warrants for electronic monitoring (“Omnibus Crime Control”).
Congress amended the fourth amendment to protect people and not just places (“Omnibus Crime Control”).