Katz among the Pigeons: The Erosion of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America
- 1 Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of NZ, New Zealand
Abstract
In Katz v. United States the Supreme Court of the United States considered Fourth Amendment rights. This decision is seen as bolstering rights, as it rolled back previous decisions which restricted the scope of the Fourth Amendment. However, it did so by conceptualising the Fourth Amendment as a right to privacy when the text of the Amendment states it is to protect “the right of the people to be secure…”. This re-writing of the Fourth Amendment reduced a public “right of the people”, which reflects the broad societal perspective, to a merely personal right or interest. The Right was given broader scope but it was made weaker. In most circumstances a personal interest will be trumped by a public interest, such as law and order, because the latter will engage the interests of more people. What is lost is the public interest in restraining state power.
- Beardmore v Carrington (1764). 2 Wils KB 244.
- Bonnard v Perryman (1891). 2 Ch. 269; 283.
- Boyd v. United States (1886). 116 U.S. 616.
- Entick v Carrington (1765). 19 State Tr 1029; 95 ER 807: 809.
- Hester v. United States (1924). 265 U.S. 57.
- Huckle v Money (1763). 2 Wils 205.
- Katz v. United States (1967). 389 U.S. 347.
- Money v Leach (1765). 3 Burr. 1692, 1742, 19 S.T. 1002.
- Olmstead v United States (1924). 265 U.S. 57.
- Semaynes Case. All ER Rep 62 5 Co Rep 91 a Cro Eliz 908 Moore KB 668 Yelv 29 77 ER 194.
- United States v. Jones (2012). 565 U.S. 400.
- Wardroper, J. (1973). Kings, Lords and Wicked Libellers.
- Wilkes v Halifax (1769). 19 S.T. 1406.
- Wilkes v Wood (1763). 2 Wils. KB 203, 204, Lofft 1, 19 S.T. 1153.
- Writ of Assistance Case or Paxton’s Case. Court Files Suffolk Vol. 572 March 1765 No 100.5156 Application Merchants 19 Jan 1761.