Talk:Katz v. United States

U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance

	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.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

'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)[reply]

nobody has responded, so i am changing it. Bgruber 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"reasonable expectation of privacy"

At this moment, the lead paragraph says "Katz also extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy"." Although a popular interpretation of Katz, it is not what the Supreme Court rule. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" quote came from a concurring opinion by Mr. Justice Harlan. Although concurring opinions carry no legal weight, they are often quoted by people who want to espouse that policy. Nevertheless, it is not precedent and should not be stated as such.

I am removing that sentence from the header. DavidForthoffer (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Doctrine?

I am not sure what happened to that page or why it redirects here, but these are two totally different (albeit related) legal concepts.

This is about reasonable expectation of privacy and when the police can listen in to a private conversation. There isn't even a third party involved in this case. This redirect is seriously misleading, at best, particularly since this has become a serious issue since the NSA surveillance has to do with data collected from third parties.

Katz has nothing to do with that.

A great source for what the third party doctrine actually is: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1138128

Longobord (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction too long

The introduction is longer than any section of the article itself. That is contrary to the Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS guidelines. Also, it results in redundancies.

I am going to move some of the text out of the lead, and incorporate in the body of the article. I will do so in a piecewise manner rather than whole hog/all at once, in case anyone wants to make incremental revisions to my edits. The law is not my area of expertise, so I don't want to unintentionally alter the meaning of the article.--FeralOink (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By "introduction", you mean the lead, I assume? If so, I have two questions.

What is the source for your claim that "the lead should not be longer than any section of the article itself"? I see no such guideline at MOS:LEAD. Rather, it says: "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs."
Why is redundancy with the body of the article a problem? By definition, the lead is "an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." (from MOS:LEAD, emphasis added). The lead is supposed to be redundant in that sense. White Whirlwind 咨 06:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the lede is too long. We don't need the details of the case itself, really, in the lede. For a case, key was the change in constitutional law that the case provided, here, being the expansion of what an individual's right to privacy covered, and its subsequent impact. I have trimmed it down to those basics. --Masem (t) 15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Verifiability and Reliance on LaFave

I noticed that the article substentially relies on LaFave, Wayne R. (2012). Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (5th ed.), a highly reputable source. However, I couldn’t find an accessible version online, which may pose a challenge for Wikipedia:Verifiability. I’ve begun adding freely accessible sources of equal quality to improve accessibility and support the article's statements. Would the community support an effort to diversify the citations with similarly high-quality, accessible sources to enhance verifiability? Professorincryptography (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your effort, with the obvious proviso that it doesn't detract from or clutter up the article. I'm less worried about the verifiability problem than you are. Many preeminent legal treatises are available online only through relatively expensive services like Westlaw or LexisNexis. Some aren't available online at all. This is not unique to the legal field, and WP:Verifiability makes clear that it is not a problem: "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." (WP:SOURCEACCESS). Libraries still serve a good purpose today. White Whirlwind 16:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply; I truly appreciate your input and the advice you provided!

You're right—I haven’t yet fully gone through all the articles and guidelines recommended for new users. After reflecting on your answer, I now realize that the potential for WP:Recentism to skew an article’s long-term neutrality could be a bigger issue than the immediate availability of free sources. I’ll be mindful of this going forward.

I also understand your point about source accessibility. If I do end up adding publicly available sources, I’ll make sure to carefully review LaFave to avoid over-citation or detracting from the article’s overall quality.

Thanks again for your guidance! Professorincryptography (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]