Suppose an individual has told friends that he knows his phone has been tapped. Yet, when he appeals conviction based on information obtained from the wiretap, his appeal is denied. In what way did the individual fail to meet Justice Harlan's test? katz vs united states

The supreme court ruled in Katz vs United States expands the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to cover electronic wiretaps.

Explanation:

Katz found guilty because of illegal gambling and the appellate court found that there was no physical intrusion into the phone booth and there was no need for warrant.

The supreme court uses a wiretap to intercept a private telephone conversation and was not a search for fourth amendment.

The majority opinion of Katz vs United States had overturned the court of appeals affirmation of the conviction.

The fourth amendment is the bill of rights of constitution that protects people from unlawful searches and occupation.

yeah sometimes i dont know why maybe cuhz something is bothering you

answer: i have a friend irl named shaniya xd

explanation: