http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=442&page=735 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&... As the CN

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=442&page=735 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&... As the CNet article noted, Justice Blackmun and the 3 judges that agreed with him thought that there was a distinction between the phone numbers the petitioner dialed (obviously recorded by the phone company, still they would later appear on his bill) and the contents of his conversation (not obviously recorded, and already protected by Katz v United States). The three dissenting judges agreed with you, but there were less of them, so their views did not become law.