“The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.”

Extends not to just tangible items (something I can hold) but extends to recording of oral statements, overheard without any technical trespass under local property law

Why the need for a Warrant Court doesn’t want “only in the discretion of the police.” Not incident to arrest Not hot pursuit Not pursuant to the suspect’s consent.

To catch a predator

“THE PROCEDURE OF ANTECEDENT JUSTIFICATION…THAT IS CENTRAL TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,” Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justices Douglas & Brennan concurring See Justice’s Whites concurring opinion to read “as a wholly unwarranted green light for the Executive Branch to resort to electronic eaves-dropping without a warrant in cases which the Executive Branch itself labels ‘national security’ matters.” See “no distinction under the Fourth Amendment between types of crime.”

Justice Harlan Hester v. US, this case is unlike a field Electronic as well as a physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Sees the rule as 1) the person exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and 2) society is prepared to recognize the expectation as “reasonable”

Justice White – concurring Today’s decision does not reach national security cases.

Is this case still important today????

NSA & Edward Snowden The Washington Post has published new revelations about the National Security Agency's electronic snooping, indicating that the intelligence branch gathers millions of contact lists from personal accounts and instant messaging around the world. The new information is attributed by The Post to "senior intelligence officials and top-secret documents provided by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden."

Current cases dealing with similar issues Twitter Turns Over User’s Messages in Occupy Wall Street Protest Case