Listening to the oral argument in Katz v. US (1967), am I right that the notion of reasonable expectations of privacy is voiced primarily by Justice Fortas?

A thread.
As I follow the argument, Katz's counsel argued for a test that asked whether an objective observer would conclude that a person intended the communication to be confidential.
According to Katz's lawyer, Harvey Schneider, the issue should be an objective inquiry into likely subjective intent.
The government's lawyer, John Martin Jr., then argued that the test, even if about privacy, needed to be rooted to a place: Not just what someone expected, but where were they when they expected it. What's the nature of that place?
It was Justice Fortas, in questioning the government's lawyer, who raised the question of reasonable expectations. (That's Fortas speaking at the top of this screenshot.)
In Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz, which formally introduced the reasonable expectation of privacy test, Harlan agreed with the government that the test had to be rooted to a place.
And Harlan thought it an accurate summary of prior precedents -- "the rule that has emerged from prior cases," as he put it -- that the test for 4A protection required that place to be one where an expectation of privacy was reasonable. And that included the phone booth in Katz.
If I'm not mistaken, the phrasing of "reasonable expectations" about privacy was first used at the Supreme Court by Justice Fortas in the Katz argument. Or at least that's my sense.
Some of my relevant articles on Katz:…
(from 2015, covering the history of Katz and what Harlan was doing)…
(forthcoming, on how the Katz test is consistent with textualism and originalism)


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @OrinKerr

3 Nov
Oral argument video in the Florida Supreme Court in People v Garcia, on compelled decryption and the 5th Amendment, here starting at 1:15. A few thought below……
This is a compelled password case, not a compelled entry case, but the state has made clear that either is fine: If it can't get compelled disclosure but *can* get compelled entry, the state says, it will just do that next and it's fine with them.
That's potentially important because this case might be the one that goes up to SCOTUS. There are splits on both compelled entry and compelled disclosure, a case that considered both issues together (or at least made clear both issues were practically in play) would be appealing.
Read 8 tweets
2 Nov
Two published 5th Circuit QI cases, two days apart, offer rather different perspectives on whether/when a factually similar precedent is needed to deny QI. (Judge Ho is right, I think, it's not; Judge Jones is wrong.)…… ImageImage
To be clear, it's possible to reconcile the two cases on their facts. But it seems to me that their overall approach to QI is quite different.
The basic dispute is a question that @JCSchwartzProf and I were discussing recently: If a violation is clear based on the rules announced in prior cases, even if the rules were announced in factually dissimilar cases, does QI apply?
Read 6 tweets
20 Oct
A common problem 1Ls have with their exams (and therefore their grades) is not understanding the role of analysis in answers. They often won't entirely get what analysis is, and why it's the most important part of an answer.

I thought I would explain how I see it. (Thread.)
First, some context. 1Ls are taught that there is analysis step in an exam answer for an issue-spotter question. Students often hear about IRAC – “Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.” But exactly what “analysis” is – and why it’s so important -- isn’t obvious.
Your prof may see it differently, so YMMV. But here’s how I see it.

“Analysis” is the real guts of the answer. It’s an explanation of how the facts and the law match up. It requires detailing a thought process based on a nuanced and complete understanding of law and fact.
Read 16 tweets
24 Sep
Lease agreements in 1791 were pretty cool. A quick thread.
Opening it.
Fully opened.
Read 9 tweets
24 Sep
Provider-deleted files and contents are not protected by the Stored Comm's Act, DDC rules per MJ Faruqui. In effect, if a provider moderates contents, all private messages and e-mails deleted can be freely disclosed and are no longer private.

Thread.… #N
First, some context. Back in 2018, Facebook deleted a bunch of accounts run by the Myanmar government because it was spreading disinformation on Facebook. Later, the Gambian government sued the Myanmar government in the International Court of Justice.
The Gambian govt is trying to get the contents of the accounts that Facebook deleted to show Myanmar's disinformation campaign. It is using a federal statute that allows discovery from the US to aid in foreign litigation to get it. (context:…)
Read 24 tweets
21 Sep
5th Circuit's en banc oral argument in US v. Morton, on digital search warrants, was this morning and is now up. (Listening now, will offer some thoughts below if I get a a chance.)
Defense counsel asks for 8 minutes of uninterrupted time. I don't know 5th Circuit practice, but this seems like a bad idea: He's just summarizing his argument. Yeesh, let's get to the questions. (At least you can listen at 1.5x speed.)

1st question at 8 min mark(!)
1st Q is about the good faith exception, and, if they're debating a novel 4A issue, doesn't that mean the good faith exception applies. (I can't ID the judge, unfortunately.)
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!