Respuesta :
Answer:
Explanation:In the case of Katz v. United States in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required whenever an individual has a reasonable "expectation of privacy." This landmark decision expanded the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. To explain this concept: 1. **Expectation of Privacy:** An "expectation of privacy" refers to the belief that certain places or information are private and should be protected from government intrusion without proper authorization, such as a warrant. For example, individuals expect that their conversations in a phone booth or the inside of their homes are private and should not be subject to government surveillance without a warrant. 2. **Katz v. United States (1967):** In this case, Charles Katz used a public payphone to transmit illegal gambling information. The FBI wiretapped the phone booth without a warrant and used the recorded conversations as evidence to convict Katz. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth, even though it was a public place. Therefore, the warrantless wiretapping violated Katz's Fourth Amendment rights. 3. **Significance:** The Katz v. United States case established that the Fourth Amendment protects not just physical spaces but also individuals' reasonable expectations of privacy in those spaces. This ruling has had a lasting impact on the interpretation of privacy rights in the context of modern technology and communication. In summary, the Supreme Court ruling in Katz v. United States (1967) emphasized that the protection of privacy under the Fourth Amendment extends to individuals' reasonable expectations of privacy in both physical and electronic communications, requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before conducting searches or surveillance in such situations.
