Katz v. United States
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
New Jersey and Iowa also chose different search-and-seizure rules for their own constitutions, as described above; those state-law choices do not alter Katz's federal rule.
13,113 later cases cite Katz v. United States; 419 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Katz v. United States?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Supreme Court limited Katz's departure from earlier electronic-surveillance holdings to wholly prospective application.
Desist v. United States · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We have concluded, however, that to the extent Katz departed from previous holdings of this Court, it should be given wholly prospective application.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court applied Katz only prospectively and admitted evidence from a non-trespassory wiretap conducted before Katz was decided.
Kaiser v. New York · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
And in Desist v. United States, ante, p. 244, we have held today that Katz is to be applied wholly prospectively. Since the wiretapping in this case occurred before Katz was decided and was accomplished without any intrusion into a constitutionally protected area of the petitioner, its fruits were not inadmissible under the exclusionary rule of the Fourth *283and Fourteenth Amendments.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit held that Katz did not apply to electronic surveillance conducted before December 18, 1967.
Doty v. United States · Tenth Circuit · filed
Reconsideration of Katz, supra, convinces us that our interpretation of and reliance on that decision was misplaced. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that since argument was heard on rehearing, the Supreme Court has held that: 'Katz is to be applied only to cases in which the prosecution seeks to introduce the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967.' Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1036, 22 L.Ed.2d 248. The recordings admitted in evidence against Epps were made more than two years before December 18, 1967. The principles of Katz, therefore, are no help to Epps.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Missouri held Katz unavailable in a state prosecution and, independently, unavailable for surveillance conducted before December 18, 1967.
Spica v. State · Supreme Court of Missouri · filed
Appellant’s contention is without merit because: (1) Katz, supra, imposes the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the exclusionary rule incident thereto, only on evidence sought to be admitted in federal prosecutions (Cf. Lee v. Florida, 392 U.S. 378, 88 S.Ct. 2096, 20 L.Ed.2d 1166, which dealt with state prosecutions, and which expressly did not reach issues under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) ; and (2) in any event, “Katz is to be applied only to cases in which the prosecution seeks to introduce the fruits of electronic surveillance conducted after December 18, 1967.” Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 1036, 22 L.Ed.2d 248. The surveillance attacked under this point was conducted in 1962.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court of Connecticut confined Katz to surreptitious third-party eavesdropping and held that it did not protect a conversation recorded with one speaker's consent.
State v. Mortoro · Supreme Court of Connecticut · filed
Undeniably, the court has painted with a broad brush in Kats in treating conversation as a subject of search and seizure protected by the fourth amendment whenever a person justifiably expects his conversation to be private. On its face, the language of the court could be read to embrace a situation like the present. On closer examination, however, Kats involved a surreptitious eavesdropping on a conversation without the knowledge or consent of either of the speakers. It did not involve, as in the earlier cases referred to, the accurate recording of a conversation with the consent of one of the speakers.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Supreme Court held that Katz did not displace informant-monitoring precedent and therefore did not protect a speaker against an interlocutor's simultaneous recording or transmission of their conversation.
United States v. White · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We see no indication in Katz that the Court meant to disturb that understanding of the Fourth Amendment or to disturb the result reached in the On Lee case, ... nor are we now inclined to overturn this view of the Fourth Amendment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Katz v. United States and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace