Del Carmen, R. V. (2004). Criminal procedures: Law and practice (6th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Resource: Web site: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/389/347.html
Review the Katz v. United States (1967) ruling at the following Web site:
As an individual citizen, how would you relate your expectation of privacy in your computer, including emails and internet access?
Would this change if you used a computer in a public library to send email or access the
See attachment - Katz v United States
In the Case of Katz & Privacy
Privacy is the right of every individual; in Katz' case however he was already under investigation for wagering information. Wiretapping in his time was still considered a touchy subject and his counsel argued for a violation of the 4th amendment in his case being that the 'tap' became evidence against him and defense sought to make it inadmissible. Using the established Olmstead & Goldman judgement however, the Court of Appeals upheld Katz' conviction being that 'conversations' are intangibles compared to actual evidence. The U.S. Supreme court however ruled that the 4th Amendment protects people, & not just tangible places or objects wherein they move; wiretaps have become an expansion of the protection of the 4th amendment law enforcement is required to issue a warrant that is limited by duration & scope prior to tapping.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 however holds that the government can authorize law enforcement agencies for wiretapping without the need for a warrant and this evidence becomes legally admissible due to the reason behind its' administering - the issue of ...
The solution provides a comprehensive look in relation to the debates & legalities behind internet activities, specifically privacy & confidentility. To do this, the solution looks at Katz v the United States (1967) ruling and also discusses new policies like the USA PATRIOT Act and how it affects personal freedoms.