Chatrie v. United States · ¶131

Whatever one thinks of Katz’s expansion of Fourth Amendment doctrine, this Court at least had the prudence to tread cautiously when implementing that expansion. Indeed, the Court spent much of the 20th century emphasizing the limits of Katz’s reach. For instance, the Court held that Katz did not require the police to obtain a warrant for visual or physical surveillance outside a house’s curtilage. Oliver v. United States, 466 U. S. 170, 178 (1984). Nor could a defendant generally claim an “expectation of privacy” in someone else’s home, his own public travels, his face-to-face conversations with another person, or information that he shared with a business. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U. S. 83, 89–91 (1998); United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 281– 282 (1983); United States v. White, 401 U. S. 745, 751–752 (1971) (plurality opinion); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 744 (1979). If…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.