finding that the officers would have had a right to sniff the students’ lockers and automobiles and, therefore, the odors detected by their canines were not protected by the Fourth Amendment because “the dog’s olfactory sense merely ‘enhances’ that of the police officer” rather than providing a new method of detection
How later courts described this case
- finding that the officers would have had a right to sniff the students’ lockers and automobiles and, therefore, the odors detected by their canines were not protected by the Fourth Amendment because “the dog’s olfactory sense merely ‘enhances’ that of the police officer” rather than providing a new method of detection
- holding, in a constitutional context, that affirmative acts of concealment create an expectation of privacy because ”[o]ne who ... shuts the [phone booth door] behind him, and pays ... to place a call is surely entitled to assume the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world”
- holding that “the Fourth amendment protects people, not places” and that when an individual “seeks to preserve [something] as private” and this expectation of privacy is “constitutionally protected,” official intrusion into that privacy is a search that requires a warrant supported by probable cause
- explaining that "the Constitution requires 'that the deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer ... be interposed between the citizen and the police' " (alteration in original) (quoting Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 481-82, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) )
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Reported superseded by statute, as recognized in United States v. Koyomejian — not on the Supreme Court's list
389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967), superseded by statute as stated in United States v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450, 1455
Questioned by United States v. Errol B. Resnick, 455 F.2d 1127 (1972)
The trial judge concluded that since Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), there has been serious question of continued vitality of the open field doctrine, but he elected to follow the post-Katz cases of Fullbright v. United States, 392 F.2d 432 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830, 89 S.Ct. 97, 21 L.Ed.2d 101 (1968), and United States v. Campbell, 395 F.2d 848 (4th Cir.), cert…
Questioned by State v. Alexander, 170 N.J. Super. 298 (1979)
The continuing validity of the curtilage doctrine was called into question after Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), which held that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
Questioned by GR v. State, 638 P.2d 191 (1981)
However, the viability of the "curtilage" test has been questioned since Katz, and most courts now attempt to determine those areas in which the person challenging the search has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 104 Md. App. 1 (1995)
Every case that we have discovered interpreting a telephone conversation under the federal wiretap act has held that the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy standard is inapplicable to wire communications.
Distinguished by State v. Milligan, 40 Ohio St. 3d 341 (1988)
In support of this view, appellee cites Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347. Katz, however, is inapposite since its focus was upon evidence which was allegedly the product of an illegal search and seizure.
Distinguished by People v. Catania, 427 Mich. 447 (1986)
Justice Brennan concurred in the White result because, in his view, Katz was inapplicable to behavior which occurred before the decision in Katz, p 755.
Distinguished by Lee v. State, 489 So. 2d 1382 (1986)
In Everett this Court distinguished the situation which it faced from that in Katz on the basis of the consent of one of the parties (i.e., the informant) to the compromised conversation:
The opinion
Mr. Justice Harlan,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court, which I read to hold only (a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383 , and unlike a field, Hester v. United States, 265 U. S. 57 , a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amend *361 ment; and (c) that the invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant.
As the Court's opinion states, “the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.” The question, however, is what protection it affords to those people. Generally, as here, the answer to that question requires reference to a “place.” My understanding of the rule that has emerged from prior decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable.” Thus a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the “plain view” of outsiders are not “protected” because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited. On the other hand, conversations in the open would not be protected against being overheard, for the expectation of privacy under the circumstances would be unreasonable. Cf. Hester v. United States, supra.
The critical fact in this case is that “[o]ne who occupies it, [a telephone booth] shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume” that his conversation is not being intercepted. Ante, at 352. The point is not that the booth is “accessible to the public” at other times, ante, at 351, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants' expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable. Cf. Rios v. United States, 364 U. S. 253 .
In Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 , we held that eavesdropping accomplished by means of an electronic device that penetrated the premises occupied by petitioner was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. *362 That case established that interception of conversations reasonably intended to be private could constitute a “search and seizure,” and that the examination or taking of physical property was not required. This view of the Fourth Amendment was followed in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, at 485 , and Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41, at 51 . Also compare Osborn v. United States, 385 U. S. 323, at 327 . In Silverman we found it unnecessary to re-examine Goldman v. United States, 316 U. S. 129 , which had held that electronic surveillance accomplished without the physical penetration of petitioner’s premises by a tangible object did not violate the Fourth Amendment. This case requires us to reconsider Goldman , and I agree that it should now be overruled. * Its limitation on Fourth Amendment protection is, in the present day, bad physics as well as bad law, for reasonable expectations of privacy may be defeated by electronic as well as physical invasion.
Finally, I do not read the Court’s opinion to declare that no interception of a conversation one-half of which occurs in a public telephone booth can be reasonable in the absence of a warrant. As elsewhere under the Fourth Amendment, warrants are the general rule, to which the legitimate needs of law enforcement may demand specific exceptions. It will be time enough to consider any such exceptions when an appropriate occasion presents itself, and I agree with the Court that this is not one.
1 also think that the course of development evinced by Silverman, supra, Wong Sun, supra, Berger, supra, and today's decision must be recognized as overruling Olmstead, v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 , which essentially rested on the ground that conversations were not subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment.