This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The government (P) thought that Katz (D) was transmitting by phone, from a public phone booth, information related to illegal gambling activities. Although no warrant was sought or received, officers intercepted and recorded D's side of the phone conversations with an electronic listening device attached to the outside of the booth. At trial, over D's objections, these recordings were introduced as evidence. D was convicted. The appellate court affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.