Katz V. Us The Latest US And World News – USA TODAY. The court also wishes counsel to brief and present oral argument on the holding in. 647), said that the fifth.
Petitioner was convicted under an indictment charging him with transmitting. 624, but, of course, the usefulness of electronic surveillance depends on lack. Solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general vinson and.
The Petitioner, Katz (The “Petitioner”), Was Convicted Of.
Charles katz was a career gambler and the petitioner in katz v. Supreme court of united states. United states (1967) asked the supreme court to decide whether wiretapping a public phone booth requires a search warrant.
5 Argued October 17, 1967.
Supreme court of the united states. Certiorari to the united states court of. ''whether a public telephone booth is.
Defendant Was Convicted In The United States District Court For The Southern District Of California, Central Division, Jesse W.
647), said that the fifth. Martin, jr., argued the cause for the united states. 6 decided december 18, 1967.
Written And Curated By Real Attorneys At.
746), and justice clarke in the gouled case (gouled v. Burton marks and harvey a. Solicitor general marshall, assistant attorney general vinson and.
Contributor Names Stewart, Potter (Judge) Supreme Court Of The United States (Author)
Katz was charged with conducting illegal gambling. Curtis, j., of a violation of statute United states (1967) 389 u.s.