Katz v. United States · ¶45

To support its new interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, which in effect amounts to a rewriting of the language, the Court's opinion concludes that “the underpinnings of Olmstead and Goldman have been... eroded by our subsequent decisions....” But the only cases cited as accomplishing this “eroding” are Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, and Warden v. Hayden, 337 U. S. 294. Neither of these cases “eroded” Olmstead or Goldman. Silverman is an interesting choice since there the Court expressly refused to re-examine the rationale of Olmstead or Goldman although such a reexamination was strenuously urged upon the Court by the petitioners’ counsel. Also it is significant that in Silverman, as the Court described it, “the eavesdropping was accomplished by means of an unauthorized physical penetration into the premises occupied by the petitioners,” 365 U. S., at 509, thus calling…

U. S. Reports, bound volume
U. S. Reports, volume 389, at 347 (Library of Congress) · transcription: Caselaw Access Project
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.