Section 1
5 min.
Is it reasonable to expect Fourth Amendment protections of cell phone calls in public places?
Yes. There need not be a physical intrusion into a tangible area in order to constitute a search. The Court already has recognized that certain "constitutionally protected areas" fall under the Fourth Amendment's protections. The trespass doctrine results in an overly literal reading of the Fourth Amendment. The objective of a wiretap is the same as a physical search -- to provide evidence that a crime has been committed. Therefore, the full protections of the Fourth Amendment should apply to wiretaps as well as searches. |
Section 1
5 min.
Is it reasonable to expect Fourth Amendment protections of cell phone calls in public places?
No. A search, by definition, cannot occur unless there is some physical intrusion into a tangible space. A house or an office can be searched because there are physical structures involved. Merely overhearing a conversation, however, does not involve any type of search. Wiretaps simply provide the technology to overhear conversations.
Although such eavesdropping may constitute an unacceptable form of social behavior if it were to be engaged in by private persons, this action may not be per se unacceptable for the government, especially when the government undertakes it as part of its Constitutional responsibility to protect the public safety. For this reason, this socially "unacceptable" behavior does not necessarily run afoul of the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. |
Section 2
20-30 min.
Audience Participation
Any audience member may stand and make a comment or pose a question to the moderator who will direct it to the judge, volunteer attorneys, debate teams, and fellow audience members. Two rules:
- Each audience member may speak only once until every audience member has had the opportunity to speak.
- Questions and comments for debaters are directed by the program facilitator to debaters on a rotating basis so that one team member does not answer all or most of the questions.
|
Section 3
5 min.
Is it reasonable for callers to expect privacy when using a cell phone in a public place?
Yes. The Fourth Amendment does not draw a distinction between public and private areas. While common sense dictates that the police should not be required to ignore evidence of a crime that has been made public through an individual's own actions, even in a public area, people may wish to retain their privacy. These are areas in which people are said to have "a reasonable expectation of privacy."
For instance, people carry bags in public, but this does not give the police the right to search them at will. Why? It is understood that the contents of the bags are private. Barring a warrant or consent, this expectation of privacy entitles them to constitutional protection.
The same logic could be applied to a cell phone conversation. The contents of a conversation between two individuals is no less private. Simply because such a conversation happens in a public place – in a phone booth or on a cell phone – does not authorize the police, without either a warrant or consent, to listen to it and take action. In other words, regardless of whether or not the conversation was in a public area, the parties to the conversation retain "a reasonable expectation of privacy." |
Section 3
5 min.
Is it reasonable for callers to expect privacy when using a cell phone in a public place?
No. Although one has an expectation of privacy in certain private spaces (which the Court has termed "constitutionally protected areas"), it is beyond reason to assume that what one voluntarily exposes to the public remains private. A public phone booth or a cell phone call made in a public place is just that, public. If Katz or any other persons wish to avail themselves of the full protections of the Fourth Amendment, they can do so by making a call from a private phone line in a private place. The moment one enters a public space, however, the expectation of privacy is gone. For instance, what if the police simply stood outside of the phone booth or stood within hearing distance of a cell phone conversation so that they were able to overhear a conversation? Surely this would be permissible.
Perhaps the "reasonable expectation of privacy" doctrine can be further circumscribed. For instance, in government terrorism investigations, the government does not randomly select phone lines to tap. Law enforcement chooses those lines it has a reason to believe are being used for terrorist activities. Since it would be absurd to argue that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when discussing terrorism strategies and tactics, eavesdropping on such telephone conversations is not unreasonable as long as the government ceases if it becomes apparent that the call has nothing to do with criminal or terrorist activity. |
Section 4
20-30 min.
Audience Participation
Any audience member may stand and make a comment or pose a question to the moderator who will direct it to the judge, volunteer attorneys, debate teams, and fellow audience members. Two rules:
- Each audience member may speak only once, until every audience member has had the opportunity to speak.
- Questions and comments for the debaters are directed by the program facilitator to debaters on a rotating basis so that one team member does not answer all or most of the questions.
|
Section 5
5 min.
Katz Team Summation
One team member summarizes the Affirmative Team's case. The speaker may also use points raised by audience members during the open discussion. |
Section 5
5 min.
United States Team Summation
One team member summarizes the Negative Team's case. The speaker also may use points raised by audience members during the open discussion. |
