We know that from the kilo case where Justice Scalia said when cuttingedge technology is used in that case to invade the privacy of the home then a warrant was presumptively required and the jones case suggested that even outside the home you might have an expectation of privacy against cuttingedge technology. In the end, the government is limited in its ability to record our conversations in public by state and federal laws, but the expectation of privacy test would have protected you against the laser beam. James, welcome to landmark cases. Youre on. Hi. When Justice Stewart delivered the opinion in court he took issue with the way the petitioner act tomorrow lated the questions which included a, whether a public telephone booth was a publicly protected area and physical penetration was necessary before search and seizure could be said were violations to the Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution. He added a couple of words in there. One was in place of right to privacy.
Rights on school grounds. Then at 9 35, New York Times versus United States which restricted the governments power over the press and broadened journalists First Amendment protections. Watch landmark cases, tonight on cspan3 and any time at cspan. Org. Wednesday night on American History tv beginning at 8 00 eastern. Congressman john lewis. The 17term democrat from georgia recently died at the age of 80 and will be buried on thursday. Before joining congress he was influential in the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. In 2019 congressman lewis gave the keynote address at a ceremony offering pioneering africanamerican tennis player arthur ashe. Watch American History tv tonight on cspan3. All persons having business before the honorable, and the Supreme Court of the United States admonished who draw near and give their attention. Landmark cases, cspans special history series produced in partnership with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas be
Well, it said the law said that all new laundries had to be constructed out of brick or stone, but existing laundries, which were made out of wood, which they all were, practically all were, could only continue to operate if they got a permit from the city. And this is what led to this charade, really, where they approved all the permit applications that white people made, say for one, and they denied all the chinese. So in a way this is not really about fire safety. It was one of quite a number of municipal ordinances that were passed to harass the chinese. If we make life so miserable for them, if we make it impossible for them to earn a living, maybe they will leave. So enter lee wiyick, who is e of the proprietors, he had been running it for 20 years. His name was not yick wo, his name was lee yick. That was the name of the laundromat. When the original case was filed, no one bothered to fix it that they didnt get the guys name right, which showed you how much they cared about Peop
Surveillance and the sort of central question i want to think about today is can intelligence agencies operate in a Democratic Society and be successful at protecting the government and its citizens while also upholding those same Citizens Rights . Especially the right to dissent. In other words, are liberty and procurity compatible . No doubt, there is a need for intelligence communities to operate. Threats exist from foreign and domestic sources, those threats are real. They have been real throughout u. S. History and they can come from across the political spectrum. But for over a century, in addition to taking real threats to the lives of american citizens, bureaus and agencies within the United States government have surveilled those who have expressed what the Cato Institute described as, quote, Strong Political views that run count toer to the prevailing government paradigm. This challenges the notion by those who support a state of some sort if you have nothing to hide, you hav
Cspan3. All persons having persons before the honorable, Supreme Court of the United States who admonish to draw near and give their attention. Landmark cases, cspan special history series produced in partnership with the National Constitution center exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice may it please the court. Quite often in many of the most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan landmark cases. Tonights case is katz versus the United States, it is a 1967 case and the person who gave his name to the case is somewhat of an unlikely hero. He was a bookmaker specializing in College Basketball games and he took his wiretapping case to the Supreme Court an