It also established that so long as a person can expect that their conversation or actions take place in private, they are protected by the Fourth Amendment search and seizure laws relative to surveillance as well as their property (Kitch, 1968). This is important because it shows that even though this case took place in the late 1960's, the new technologies that are making their way to the open market will ultimately be used to track and gather information on criminals and criminal activity, and that these new technologies will also have to fall under the umbrella of the protection guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Works Cited

Amar, Akhil Reed. (1994). "Fourth Amendment First Principles"

Harvard Law Review,...

107, No. 4 (Feb., 1994), pp. 757-819.
Goldsmith, Michael. (1973). "The Supreme Court and Title III: Rewriting the Law of Electronic Surveillance." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 74, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 1-171.

Kaplan, John. (1961). "Search and Seizure: A No-Man's Land in the Criminal Law."

California Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Aug., 1961), pp. 474-503.

Kipperman, Steven M. (1971). "Inaccurate Search Warrant Affidavits as a Ground for Suppressing Evidence." Harvard Law Review, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Feb., 1971), pp. 825-833.

Kitch, Edmund W. (1968). "Katz v. United States: The Limits of the Fourth Amendment." The Supreme Court Review, Vol.…