91172.pdf

244 9 Corrections and Prison Practices—Adult Forensics

When electronic monitors are used, the probationer's or parolee's sense of identity

is in question. Research indicates that numerous offenders report high psychological

stress when strangers notice them wearing the electronic monitoring device. The

electronic monitoring device creates for the user embarrassment and a loss of a sense

of identity. These factors contribute to questioning whether electronic monitoring

devices are constitutional. In the landmark case of Katz v. United States (1967),

the court rejected the defendant's claim that electronic monitoring devices are a

violation of constitutional rights. Instead, the court ruled that electronic monitoring

devices are constitutionally acceptable.

Kan /.'. United States (1967) is the modern landmark case in electronic monitoring

because it ruled that electronic monitoring devices are acceptable for use in any location.

More importantly, the Fourth Amendment right to privacy was ruled as a right to a

person rather than to a protected place, such as a house or public telephone booth.

Currently, the Katz case has been the foundation upon which recent right-to-privacy

and electronic-monitoring cases have been decided. Nearly 40 years after Olmstead v.

I.'nitt't! States (1928) (a decision which found that evidence obtained by tapping telephone

wires did not violate a defendant's rights), Katz v. United States represented the modern

landmark case in electronic monitoring when the Court overruled Olmstead saying

that the Fourth Amendment protects people rather than places. Therefore, electronic

monitors are constitutionally acceptable in protected places because Fourth Amendment

rights cannot reach into the boundaries of a place.

In Kat~ i'. United States the defendant, Katz, was convicted under an indictment

charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines in

violation of number 18, section 1084 of the United States Code. Government agents,

without the defendant's knowledge or consent, attached a monitoring device to the

outside of a public telephone booth and recorded only the defendant's conversation.

Overruling Olmstead's trespass doctrine, the Court created a new trespass doctrine hold-

ing that the Fourth Amendment applies to not only the seizure ol tangible items, but

extends as well to the recording of oral statements. The Court reasoned that once it is

recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people and not simple "areas" against

unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of the Fourth Amend-

ment does not protect places. The court held that Katz's Fourth Amendment rights were

not violated because Fourth Amendment rights do not protect an individual in a place,

such as a public telephone booth.

Literature Review

The constant growth of electronic monitoring devices in the past few years is
related to overcrowded prisons and the costs of housing prisoners. Much of the
development in the use of electronic monitoring has occurred in the absence of
reliable information about the programs. More recently, reliable empirical studies
have been conducted that give psychological insight into electronic-monitoring
devices. For example, Lilly (1992) presented a large study on Pride Inc., the non-
profit corporation which in December, 1984, set up the first continuously operating
electronic-monitoring program (Schmidt & Curtis, 1987). The Pride Inc. Initiative
is the most widely publicized electronic monitoring program in the U.S. and the