Also known as: knowingly expose to the public · knowing exposure to the public · knowingly exposed to the public
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct or information that an individual reveals to public observation or hearing. Such exposure eliminates Fourth Amendment protection under the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test because the person has surrendered any claim to keep the matter private.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rico stands in a city park and speaks into his cellphone about gang business. Federal agents arrange with his carrier to capture the call content routed through the local cell sector. The recordings capture words that bystanders could not hear. Because Rico spoke into the phone rather than broadcasting to the park, he did not knowingly expose the conversation content to the public.
Kwame Kofi rides as a passenger in a car borrowed by a friend. Officers stop the vehicle and search the interior without a warrant. Kofi later claims a privacy interest in items found under the seat. Because Kofi had no ownership or control over the car, he knowingly exposed any items inside to the public view of the driver and any subsequent occupants.
Karina Kovacs parks her car in her open driveway with the windows down. Officers walk up the driveway and see incriminating items on the front seat. Kovacs later moves to suppress the observation. Because the items sat in plain view from the public street, Kovacs knowingly exposed them to the public.
Khalil Kabir appears before a grand jury under subpoena and is directed to speak certain words into a recorder. Prosecutors later use the recording at trial to identify his voice on a wiretap. Kabir objects that the recording violated the Fourth Amendment. Because every person produces his voice for others to hear in daily life, Kabir knowingly exposed the sound of his voice to the public.
Keisha Kincaid steps from her doorway onto the front porch while holding a package of narcotics. Officers standing on the public sidewalk see the package in her hands. Kincaid later argues the observation invaded her home privacy. Because Kincaid carried the package into an area visible from the street, she knowingly exposed it to the public.
Karl Klein places a drum of chemicals inside a rented storage locker and locks the door. Officers earlier installed a beeper inside the drum with consent from a prior owner. The beeper later signals the drum's location inside the locker. Because Klein did not place the drum in public view, he did not knowingly expose its contents or location to the public.
No. A caller who speaks into a phone in a normal tone exhibits a subjective expectation that only the other participant will hear the words. Society recognizes that expectation as reasonable because bystanders cannot overhear the network content. The government therefore conducts a search when it intercepts that content without a warrant.
Supporting sources
…protected' deflects attention from the real problem.[^maj-9] The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not protected. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally…
…concluded on numerous occasions that the entitlement to an expectation of privacy does not hinge on ownership: "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. . . . But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the
…a Fourth Amendment challenge, although the discovery could hardly be termed "inadvertent." [^maj-6]: Moreover, what a person knowingly exposes to the public is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. See Lewis v. United States , 385 U. S. 206, 210 (1966); United States v. Lee , 274 U. S. 559, 563 (1927); Hester v. United States , 265…
…that 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
Yes. Once trash is left outside the curtilage for regular pickup, it becomes accessible to sanitation workers, passersby, and animals. That exposure defeats any reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of shredding or the targeted nature of later police retrieval.
Supporting sources
Yes when the room is unlocked, frequently entered by coworkers, and sounds travel easily. Those physical features show the speakers did not take steps sufficient to keep the words private from third parties. The government therefore does not conduct a search by recording conversations that escape into the shared workspace.
Supporting sources
No. A caller who uses a normal tone without speakerphone shows a subjective expectation that the words will remain private. Society recognizes that expectation as reasonable even in a semi-public space. Electronic surveillance that captures more than a passerby could hear therefore constitutes a search.
Supporting sources