room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitledto know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures(Katzen 4). Justice Stewart’s feelings on the case were that the use ofelectronic surveillance should be regulated. He thinks permission shouldbe granted for the use of electronic surveillance. Justice Douglas, withwhom Justice Brennan joined, concurred that “The Fourth Amendmentdraws no lines between various substantive offenses. The arrests incases of hot pursuit and the arrests on visible or other evidence ofprobable cause cut across the board and are not peculiar to any kind ofcrime (Galloway 216). ” Justice Harlan concurred that like a home atelephone booth has its privacy. And the intrusion into a place that isprivate is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Also, warrants are veryimportant in legal procedures of the court and must be followed through. Justice White Concurred, I agree that the official surveillance ofpetitioner’s telephone conversations in a public booth must be subjectedto the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment the particularsurveillance undertaken was unreasonable absent a warrant properlyauthorizing it (Hall 482). Justice Fortas and Justice Douglas concurred together and saidthat the fourth amendment should be revised for todays technology. Although the right of the fourth amendment has come up allot like theOsborn V. United States case. Now it is time to adjust and start bysaying that the FBI “violated the privacy upon which the petitionerjustifiably relied while using the telephone booth (Levy 1097)”. Justice Black dissented, he could not concur because he could notmake the amendment say what it didn’t know when it was written, “I willnot distort the words of the amendment in order to keep the constitutionup to date (Katzen 15).” He believes that privacy is that only explained inthe fourth ...
