ersations. Katz lost thecase all the way up to the Supreme Court because the state courts andthe Court of Appeals said there was no amendment violation since therewas “no physical entrance into the area occupied by the petitioner (Hall482).” The Constitutional Fourth Amendment was looked at and analyzedvery carefully and the Supreme Court decided in favor of Katz with aseven to one vote. Strong arguments were brought to the stand, theGovernments eavesdropping violated the privacy of Katz. “The FourthAmendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends aswell the recording of oral statements (Katzen 1).” The surveillance in thiscase could have been legal by the constitution, but it was not part of thewarrant issued. Warrants are very valuable to make everything stated in the fourthamendment legal. The telephone booth was made of glass so he wasvisible to the public, but he did not enter the booth so no one could seehim, he entered the booth so no one could hear him. A person in atelephone booth is under protection of the Fourth Amendment, One whooccupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits himto place a call is surly entitled to assume that the words he utters into themouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world. To read the constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role thatthe public telephone has to come to play in private communication(Katzen 2). But with all this evidence it was still fought that thesurveillance method they used involved no physical penetration into thetelephone booth. The Fourth Amendment was thought to limit onlysearches and seizures of tangible property. The decision of the court was seven to one and Justice Marshalltook no part in the decision of the case. Justice Stewart concurred in hisspeech that, ...these considerations do not vanish when the search inquestion is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel...
