In the late 1960s, Charles Katz was found guilty on an eight-count indictment for operating illegal gambling establishments across state lines, which represented a violation of federal law. 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 phone booth he had been using over the course of those days. In doing so, they discovered that Katz was transmitting betting details from Miami to Boston (Katz 1967). Following these findings, the defendant appealed, arguing that the sound bytes were procured in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected this motion because the officers never physically entered the phone booth and the Fourth Amendment was not created to protect one's rights in a public place. But the Supreme Court overturned the defendant's conviction and placed another perspective of the scenario under the protection of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court said Katz had entered the phone booth, closed the door behind him, entered an outgoing call cost and placed the call, all under the impression that whatever he verbalized on the phone would be reserved exclusively for the person on the other end of the line. of the line and never advertised globally. The Majority Dissent – ​​or “opinion,” included the main idea that the Fourth Amendment defends 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 phone call in a common place, he wanted to excuse the unwanted ear: the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in Katz's favor (Katz 1967). to...... middle of paper ...... remain respectable in the journalistic field, it is imperative to respect all constitutional laws and ethical values. In conclusion, “the First Amendment imposes limitations on government limitation of 'freedom' to associate and privacy in one's associations'” (Katz 1967). But Katz v. United States is one of the very few substantive scandals that has no bearing on the First Amendment: the outcome of this scandal has actually created a movement in favor of the Fourth Amendment allowing citizens to be more confident in their right to privacy. Judge Harlan said: “my understanding of the rule that has emerged from previous judicial decisions is that there is a twofold requirement, first that a person has shown an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation is one that society is willing to recognize as “reasonable” (Katz 1967).