News

After Court Restores Research Funding, Trump Still Has Paths to Target Harvard

News

‘Honestly, I’m Fine with It’: Eliot Residents Settle In to the Inn as Renovations Begin

News

He Represented Paul Toner. Now, He’s the Fundraising Frontrunner in Cambridge’s Municipal Elections.

News

Harvard College Laundry Prices Increase by 25 Cents

News

DOJ Sues Boston and Mayor Michelle Wu ’07 Over Sanctuary City Policy

High Court Bans Wiretaps Without Order of Judge

By The ASSOCIATED Press

WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 18 -- The Constitution protects private telephone conversations--even those made from a public booth--from unauthorized government snooping, the Supreme Court ruled today.

However, law enforcement agents may eavesdrop and use what they hear as evidence if the electronic surveillance is limited and is conducted with a judge's permission, the court also held.

With the 7-1 decision, by Justice Potter Stewart, the court abandoned its "trespass" doctrine--the view that privacy is not violated unless there is a physical trespass.

In other words, as Stewart put it: "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags