Katz v. United States is a Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of "research" displayed in the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Court's ruling helped set a new standard over previous interpretations of what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure, as explained in the Fourth Amendment. This case would conclude what may be considered an immaterial intrusion with technology such as a search and overturn Olmstead v. United States, a 1928 case that established that wiretaps did not fall under searches and/or seizures, Katz also extends that the Fourth Amendment protects all areas in which a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” In the Katz v. United States case, petitioner Charles Katz was arrested in 1976 on eight counts of transmitting betting information from Los Angeles to bookies in both Boston and Miami. To obtain evidence, the FBI placed the man in question under surveillance. Later in the investigation, after determining the time and location where Katz would consistently make his calls, investigators attached an electronic listening device to the outside of the public telephone booth in order to record his conversations. After six days of monitoring the booth and with sufficient evidence gathered, the FBI had Charles arrested and eventually tried him through the lower courts. Once charged with his crimes, he questioned whether the evidence and recordings provided had actually been obtained illegally by the FBI. Since the listening device used for the wiretaps had been placed in what would be considered a "private" area without a warrant allowing for the intrusion and subsequent "search and seizure" of evidence... half the paper.. .h used by Katz were illegal. Therefore, the evidence against him gathered from his conversations should be suppressed. In conjunction with Judge Stewart's decision, Judge John Harlan agreed that the Fourth Amendment would be implemented to protect people, not places. It then describes a twofold requirement relating to the protection that would be afforded to them by the amendment. First, that a person has shown an actual belief in privacy and, second, that the expectation of privacy is one that society would recognize as reasonable. The critical fact here is that a person who enters a telephone booth closes the door behind him, pays the toll, and is certainly entitled to assume that his conversation is not being intercepted; but on the other hand, conversations held in public could easily be overheard, making the expectation of privacy unreasonable..