They made sure that they only recorded him and not anyone else's conversations. Katz lost the case all the way up to the Supreme Court because the state courts and the Court of Appeals said there was no amendment violation since there was "no physical entrance onto the area occupied by the petitioner.
"The Fourth Amendment was looked at and analyzed very carefully and the Supreme Court decided in favor of Katz with a seven to one vote. Strong arguments were brought to the stand; the Governments eavesdropping violated the privacy of Katz. "The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items but extends as well the recording of oral statements." .
The surveillance in this case could have been legal by the constitution, but it was not part of the warrant issued. Warrants are very valuable to make everything stated in the Fourth Amendment legal. .
The telephone booth was made of glass so he was visible to the public, but he did not enter the booth so no one could see him, he entered the booth so no one could hear him. A person in a telephone booth is under protection of the Fourth Amendment, One who occupies it, shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surly entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcasted to the world.
To read the constitution more narrowly is to ignore the vital role that the public telephone has to come to play in private communication. But with all this evidence it was still fought that the surveillance method they used involved no physical penetration into the telephone booth. The Fourth Amendment was thought to limit only searches and seizures of tangible property. .
The decision of the court was seven to one and Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the decision of the case. Mr. Justice Stewart concurred in his speech that, .these considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth.