News

Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti-Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department

News

Following Dining Hall Crowds, Harvard College Won’t Say Whether It Tracked Wintersession Move-Ins

News

Harvard Outsources Program to Identify Descendants of Those Enslaved by University Affiliates, Lays Off Internal Staff

News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Class Session With Gazan Patients, Calling It One-Sided

News

Garber Privately Tells Faculty That Harvard Must Rethink Messaging After GOP Victory

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