In the late 1960s, Charles Katz was convicted on eight counts of operating illegal gambling across state lines, which constituted a violation of federal laws. In an effort to gather more evidence about Katz's actions, federal agents kept him under surveillance for six days, then strategically placed a wiretapping device outside a public telephone booth he used during those days. In doing so, they discovered that Katz was passing betting details from Miami to Boston (Katz 1967). Following these findings, the defendant appealed his conviction, claiming that the sound bytes were obtained in disregard of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected this plea because the officers never physically entered the phone booth and the Fourth Amendment was not created to protect a person's rights in a public place. But the Supreme Court overturned the defendant's conviction and presented another side of the scenario, under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that Katz entered the phone booth, closed the door behind him, entered the charges for an outgoing call, and placed his call, all with the impression that anything he would see in the phone would only be for the person on the other end of the line. of the line, and was never made public on a global scale. The majority dissent – ​​or “opinion,” encompassed the main idea that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, from unwarranted searches and seizures; and although Katz did not choose to hide his identity from the public when he made his telephone call in a common location, he wished to excuse the unwanted ear: the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 1 in favor of Katz ( Katz 1967). To...... middle of paper ......emaintain respectable in the field of journalism, it is imperative to respect all constitutional laws and ethical values. In conclusion, “the First Amendment places limits on government restriction of the 'freedom' of association and privacy in its associations” (Katz 1967). But the Katz v. United States is one of the few major scandals that has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment: the outcome of this scandal actually created a movement for the Fourth Amendment that allows citizens to be more confident in their right to freedom. confidentiality. Judge Harlan said: “My understanding of the rule which has emerged from previous judicial decisions is that there is a twofold requirement: first, a person must have demonstrated a real (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that expectations are those that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable” (Katz 1967).