David A. Sklansky's View of Katz v. the United States - Article Example

David A. Sklansky's view of Katz v. United s The aim of this work is to understand, why the case of Katz v. United s is still important for the legal practice, especially from the viewpoint of the security threats existing after the events of 9/11, and why Sklansky in his article 'Katz v. United States: The Limits of Aphorism' states that this is one of the most important and universal Fourth Amendment cases ever decided. (Sklansky, 2006) Sklansky writes that in the case with Charlie Katz 'the Court concluded that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had violated the Fourth Amendment Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures' by bugging a pair of public telephone booths from which Katz had placed his bets'. (Sklansky, 2006) According to the author, Katz case remains a landmark both because it provides the constitutional framework that continues to govern electronic surveillance, and because it provides the modern test for a 'search' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment has been the cornerstone in many legal cases for the limits to which the privacy of the person can be breached for the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases. However, the case itself remains rather ambiguous, and there is still doubt, whether taking into account the modern situation after the events of 9/11 electronic surveillance and eavesdropping should be allowed without a warrant Some suppose that the judicial decisions made by Burger and Rehnquist may diminish the effect of Katz's case. It is possible to have a look at least one of the cases ruled by these justices in relation to the Fourth amendment: 'Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). In Smith, the Court held that phone company use of a "pen register" at its office, in response to a warrantless police request, to "record the numbers dialed" from the defendant's phone (as distinct from the content of conversations) did not violate the Fourth Amendment, because, given general knowledge that phone companies collect such information for long-distance billing and other purposes, "it is too much to believe" that telephone subscribers "harbor any general expectation that the numbers they dial will remain secret." (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) Though the urgency of the Katz's case is still relevant and even in the light of terrorist threats in the modern society it has its weight, it gives more questions, than answers. It was interesting to note, that actually Katz is viewed as a failure among scholars. It is agreed, that his striving to prove that surveillance is legal, but only under a warranty, is important, but the case itself has not set any reasonable limits for privacy and it should be defined; whether this framework should be adopted outside the domestic law enforcement and what it has to do with the new communication technologies. Sklansky notes, that 'reasonable expectation of privacy sounds nice, but what does it mean' (Sklansky, 2006) The question is absolutely reasonable, taking into account that the privacy has become a subject of major concern now with the cases of privacy breaches more and more frequent, and inability of Courts to define the reasonable privacy limits when it comes to crime. Noting again the events of 9/11 and bearing in mind that terrorist acts' elimination requires special thorough investigation and action, there is a question how privacy issue and national security issue can be weighted by both public safety entities and the court In Katz's case Justice White still left certain space for consideration, noting that in 'national security cases electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval.' (Kitch, 1968) As a result and following the case, the executive Branch has asserted the power to use unwarranted electronic surveillance in the two specific types of national security situations: against foreign intelligence and against domestic subversion. This has been an attempt to weight privacy and national security, as questioned above. However, in this case the Supreme Court has unanimously come to the conclusion, that the Government of the US, even in the light of the national security threat, should not breach privacy of its citizens without providing neutral authority (magistrate) with sufficient evidence for the necessity of such surveillance. Katz v. United States is an important case in the legal history, but Sklansky himself states, it is very argumentative; 'the Court, might have done better in Katz, I suggested, to make clear that it was protecting the confidentiality of a communication - that Charlie Katz's expectation of privacy was reasonable not because of where he was, or who he was, but because of what he was doing' (Sklansky, 2006) This statement is related to the fact that Katz case has made the booth the central place of the case, supposed to be closed area and thus leading to high level of the expected privacy. In the era of the events similar to 9/11 the issue of privacy should be re-considered; especially taking into account rapid development of electronic communication technologies. The protection of privacy is more needed in the cases of national security, than in ordinary crimes; the Government tends to define its opponents a possible threats, and thus appears in the areas which are directly regulated by the First and the Fourth Amendments. Conclusion The aim of the paper was to look at the case Katz v. United States in the light of the national security threats and the issues of privacy, which are often interrelated and thus the correct decision should be taken as for the warranted possibility to breach this privacy for the protection against terrorist threats. It is thus concluded, that Katz's case is relevant even after the events of 9/11; the reason of this relevance is in the fact, that privacy concerns are essential in the large Government security cases; while the Government is aimed at protecting the national security, it is also aimed at protecting privacy of its citizens, and thus the choice should have grounded evidence for the necessity of such breach with the participation of the third authoritative neutral party to confirm the relevance of the evidence. Works cited Sklansky, D.A. Katz v. United States: The Limits of Aphorism. In Criminal Procedure Stories (Carol S. Steiker ed.), 2006: p. 223-258 Kitch, E.W. Katz v. United States: The Limits of the Fourth Amendment. Sup Ct Rev 133 (1968), p. 140 Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 1979 Read More