29% and falling

U.S. Supreme Court

SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

442 U.S. 735 SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.




The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information Page 442 U.S. 735, 736

to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435. Pp. 741-746.

283 Md. 156, 389 A. 2d 858, affirmed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and WHITE, REHNQUIST, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., post, p. 746, and MARSHALL, J., post, p. 748, filed dissenting opinions, in which BRENNAN, J., joined. POWELL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Howard L. Cardin argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was James J. Gitomer.

Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were George A. Nilson, Deputy Attorney General, and Deborah K. Handel and Stephen B. Caplis, Assistant Attorneys General.

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents the question whether the installation and use of a pen register[Footnote 1] constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,[Footnote 2] made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

Refer to the article in the USAToday that I linked.

Your claim of FACT is actually the debate that is being waged. Your claim of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that there is no constitutional authority iis interesting. Please tell us how you know this yet Lawyers, Intelligence experts, politicians, journalists, and people all over the world continue to debate the legalities of the issue.

IF YOU KNOW, TELLS US IN AS MUCH DETAIL PLEASE.

It has nothing to do with FISA, it has to do with your claim that the Fourth Amendment protects you from the NSA program of retrieving phone records

If you think I have violated your sacred right to forum niceties then please report me to the RESMODS.

name these lawyers, Intelligence experts, politicians and journalists.

Your President is a criminal and belongs in an orange jumpsuit.

Go have a margarita or somethin'.

name these lawyers, Intelligence experts, politicians and journalists.

Your President is a criminal and belongs in an orange jumpsuit.

Why do you hate your freedoms?

Champie, will you please tell us why you think it is ok for the President to disobey laws that he signs?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

In many cases, he is simply asserting his belief that a certain requirement encroaches on presidential power.

I'm asking you how you know it is ILLEGAL? I'm sitting here waiting for a good argument. I've told you everything I know and I conceed that there is an ongoing debate.

I'm not sure how you came to suspect that I hate my freedoms. Care to clarify what makes you believe that I might hate my freedoms?

well, the article cites the reason Bush thinks it is ok:


Perhaps we should start a thread about Presidential powers. I'll admit that I am not knowledgable enough to answer your question, but if you read the article, the author presents some arguments (other peoples views, not the authors) to your question.

I think a good discussion about PRESIDENTIAL POWERS among knowledgable people would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, these forums are not well suited for informed debate.

It is useful to know that your point of view is shaped by concerns about the kind of activity that is presented in the article

I'm not the one making the claim that the NSA program is illegal! You have made tha claim.

When you use the Fourth Amendment as supporting evidence of your claim, I pointed out that I understand the issue differently becasue of my reading of the Smith v Maryland Supreme Court Case.

So, I ask again, do you insist that the NSA program is illegal because of the FOURTH Amendment, or do you have other supporting information. If you have something else to add or refute, then please detail your case.

well, the article cites the reason Bush thinks it is ok:

well, the article cites the reason Bush thinks it is ok:


Perhaps we should start a thread about Presidential powers. I'll admit that I am not knowledgable enough to answer your question, but if you read the article, the author presents some arguments (other peoples views, not the authors) to your question.

I think a good discussion about PRESIDENTIAL POWERS among knowledgable people would be worthwhile. Unfortunately, these forums are not well suited for informed debate.

It is useful to know that your point of view is shaped by concerns about the kind of activity that is presented in the article

Joy, I think I pretty clearly admitted that I can't answer the question in a satisfactory way. That is why I suggested a thread about Presidental Power.

Just wanted an opinion that was all your own.

He has to clear it through Limbaugh first, Joy --give him until Monday.

No, I can't answer the question because the issue of Presidential Powers is very complex. There are a variety of legislative forces all working simultaneously. If you look at the NSA wiretapping case, there are a number of agencies and laws and constitutional considerations all in play.

Presidential Powers is not an easy question, yet it is at the heart of all the debates raging today.

If anyone can offer some guidance or lessons on how to approach the subject, I would appreciate it.

If anyone can offer some guidance or lessons on how to approach the subject, I would appreciate it.

I'd like to see a formal investigation to determine what exactly is happening and if warrented proper legal action.
Right now I just see speculation and assertions of right/wrong from either side but no clear remedy.

let's be fair.

I hope you recognize who the tolorant and intolorant are.

I was offering my suggestion to your query of how the subject the wiretapping and other suspicious activities under discussion should be addressed.

My use of "either side" was meant to refer to the wider discussion including posturing by the Dems and damage control from the White House.