...no reasonable expectation of privacy in his journey on the public highway, presumably arguing that "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public,...is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." 5 While not equating "the uninvited shadower in this instance with the 'uninvited ear' described in...

...and acoustical dpvicps which are used to improperly intercept private communications, it held that "what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of constitutional protection . . . the protection of a person's general right to privacy — his right...

...optical and acoustiai devices which are used to improperly intercept private communications, held that "what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home c office, is not a subject of constitutional protection . . . the protection of i person's general...

...using an otherwise public telephone booth, said : "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even...office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See. 1,1-wi» v. United States, 385 US 206, 210 (1966) ; United State* v. Lee, 274 US 559, 563 (1927)....

...using an otherwise public telephone booth, said : "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even...office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See. Lewis v. United States, 385 US 206, 210 (1966) ; United States v. Lee, 274 US 559, 563 (1927)....

...invaded..." BERGER V. NEV YORK. 386 US 41 (1967). "For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even...constitutionally protected..." KATZ V. UNITED STATES, 389 US 347 (1967). "Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal...

...103.45. CALIFORNIA BANKERS ASSN. v. SHULTZ 11 We said in Katz v. United States, 389 US 347, 351352. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even...to the public, may be constitutionally protected." As stated in United States v. White, 401 US 745, 752, the question is "what expectations of privacy"...

...argument. In Katz v. United States, supra, we said that the Fourth Amendment provides no protection for what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office . . . ." 389 US, at 351. The physical characteristics of a person's voice, its tone and manner, as...

...Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. "But what lie seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public may be constitutionally...

...11094ft CALIFORNIA BANKKRS ASSN. v. SHULTZ II Wejaic[ in Kotz v. United States, 389 US 347,3513j>2. "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even...to the public may be constitutionally protected." As stated in Uniîra States v. White, 401 US 745, 752. the question is "what expectations of privacy"...