3 ms·
But you still run into the fact that when authorities listened in on the call by a specific individual (by a manually enabled/disabled microphone) on a public p
by einhverfr 13y ago
But you still run into the fact that when authorities listened in on the call by a specific individual (by a manually enabled/disabled microphone) on a public phone booth, the Supreme Court held that the individual was protected, not the place and therefore when he entered a phone booth and closed the door evesdropping (by wiretapping or just a microphone) was a 4th Amendment search. See Katz v. United States.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mpyne 13y agoYes, that's exactly why I mentioned that emails under the suspect's own custody would be protected. As I understand the law at the time, if the phone company themselves had happened to record the conversation and voluntarily chose to divulge it to the government there would have been no crime, and the evidence would have been admissible. The 4th Amendment applies to the government, not to third parties, and this is why the government has had to pass laws strengthening privacy protections, even after the Katz decision.