Katz vs. United States
Katz vs the United States is a case that involved Katz, the petitioner and the United States the respondent, which was decided by Warren Court. The case was argued on the 17th of October, 1967 and decided on the 18th of December, 1967 at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
There were ongoing speculations concerning the transmission of gambling information by Katz. Acting on the suspicion, Federal agents placed a device that could eavesdrop on Katz conversations as a nearby phone booth used by the petitioner, and this was done in a bid to establish whether Katz was indeed passing on gambling information over the phone to clienteles residing in other states (Katz v. United States, 35 389 US 347, 1967). The recordings of the conversations, Katz was found to have been illegally transmitting wagering information from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston, resulting in his conviction under an eight-count indictment. During his appeal, Katz argued that the court could not use the recordings as evidence against him. However, the Court of Appeals rejected Katz dispute since there was no physical incursion into the phone booth; hence the court’s granting of certiorari.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
. The Court did rule that the petitioner was entitled to 4th Amendment protection stating that the physical intrusion into the phone booth used by Katz and eavesdropping on his conversations was uncalled for. However, the Fourth Amendment protects people and not places, which resulted in the concluding opinion and conviction of Katz over ‘reasonable’ expectation of the protection provided by the Fourth Amendment.
United States vs. Jones Case
United States vs. Jones is a case that entailed, the United States, the petitioner and Antoine Jones, the respondent, which was decided by Roberts Court. The case was granted on June 27, 2011, argued on November 8, 2011, and concluded on January 23, 2012, at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On the 24th of October, 2005, Antoine Jones was arrested for being in possession of drugs, which the police established after attaching, without judicial approval, a tracker to the respondent’s jeep (United States v. Jones, 10-1259 565 US (2012). The police followed Jones for a month and then arrested establishing that he was in possession of drugs. A jury found the respondent not guilty on all that he was charged on except for conspiracy, which typically the jurors hung.
However, not everyone was pleased by the jury’s decision, which led the District prosecutors to re-file a single count of conspiracy against the respondent and his business associate, Lawrence Maynard. Jones and Maynard were afterwards convicted. However, the U.S. Court of Apeeal for the District of Columbia through a three-judge panel ruled that the decision did not qualify to be used in the justification of a 24-hour surveillance without judicial approval or a warrant (United States v. Jones, 10-1259 565 US (2012). The three-judge panel ruled about Supreme Court’s statement in a 1983 case concerning using a beeper to track suspects. The unwarranted surveillance violated Jone’s Fourth Amendment, which was evident in the opinions by the panel of judges.
Justice Antoine Scalia delivered the Court’s opinion that affirmed the lower court’s judgement, arguing that it was unlawful to plant a tracker on Jones’ jeep as it is considered an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor also concurred with a similar opinion, stating that the government unlawfully acquired evidence, which was also characterized by invasion of privacy of the respondent (United States v. Jones, 10-1259 565 US (2012). Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the judgement passed but was opposed to the framing of the question of trespass to property. He argued that the manner in which the problem was structured strained the fourth amendment's language, thus requiring better analysis of the case to establish whether the government violated Jones’ reasonable expectation of privacy.
Between the two arguments, Scalia’s and Sotomayor's, I find Scalia’s to be more persuasive as it directly interprets the Fourth Amendment's provision of the right to privacy and being that Jones jeeps privately owned means that there was the invasion of privacy and trespass to private property as well.
References
Katz v. United States, 35 389 US 347 (1967).
United States v. Jones, 10-1259 565 US (2012).
