/ree-zuh-nuh-bul ek-SPEK-tay-shun of PRY-vuh-see/·principle
Also known as:reasonable expectations of privacy · reasonable expectation of privacy test · Katz expectation · REP
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A two-part inquiry used to determine whether government conduct constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. An individual must first exhibit an actual subjective expectation of privacy in the place or information at issue. Society must then be prepared to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Phone Booth Surveillance
Renata Russo entered a public telephone booth, closed the door, and dialed a number while speaking in a low voice. Federal agents attached a listening device to the outside of the booth and recorded her conversation without a warrant. The recording revealed details of an illegal gambling operation. Because Russo manifested a subjective expectation of privacy by shutting the door and the expectation was one society recognizes as reasonable, the agents conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Custodial Interrogation Warning
Rina Rahman was taken into custody at a police station and questioned about a robbery without being advised of her rights. Officers later sought to introduce her statements at trial. The absence of warnings meant the statements could not be used because the interrogation occurred in circumstances where a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's own words was overridden by the need for procedural safeguards.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Witness Statement Confrontation
Riley Rivera gave a statement to police describing an assault. At trial the prosecution introduced the statement through a third party without calling Rivera to testify. The defendant objected that admission violated confrontation rights. The court examined whether the statement was made under circumstances carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy that would trigger constitutional protections against testimonial use.
Crawford v. Washington541 U.S. 36 (2004)
Zoning Restriction Challenge
Regina Robinson and five other unrelated adults rented a house in a village that limited occupancy to two unrelated persons. They challenged the ordinance as infringing on associational freedoms. The court assessed whether residents held a reasonable expectation of privacy in choosing household composition that society would deem protected from local regulation.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas416 U.S. 1 (1974)
Gender Violence Remedy
Roberto Reyes was assaulted by a former partner on a college campus. Federal legislation provided a civil remedy for gender-motivated violence. The court considered whether the statute intruded on areas where individuals retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal safety decisions traditionally left to state control.
United States v. Morrison529 U.S. 598 (2000)
Assisted Suicide Ban
Ralph Richardson, a terminally ill patient, sought a physician's assistance to end his life under a state statute permitting the practice. The state prohibited the assistance. The court evaluated whether patients possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in end-of-life medical choices that society would recognize as fundamental and protected from state interference.
Washington v. Glucksberg521 U.S. 702 (1997)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What are the two parts of the reasonable expectation of privacy test?+
The test requires first that the person exhibit an actual subjective expectation of privacy. Second, that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Supporting sources
Does the Fourth Amendment protect only places or also people?+
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Protection turns on whether government conduct violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy rather than on property interests alone.
Supporting sources
When does an employee have a reasonable expectation of privacy at work?+
An employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a desk or file cabinet when the employer has not reduced that expectation through clear policies or practices. Society recognizes the expectation as reasonable when the area is not held out to public view.
Supporting sources
Does knowingly exposing information to the public eliminate Fourth Amendment protection?+
Yes. What a person knowingly exposes to the public lacks Fourth Amendment protection even if the person subjectively desires privacy.
Supporting sources
How does the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis apply to email stored on employer servers?+
An employee generally has only a limited expectation of privacy in email on an employer-furnished system because the employee knows the system exists primarily for the employer's convenience.
Supporting sources
376 U.S. 254 (1964)Remedies
…of this statute enjoys ordinary criminal-law safeguards such as the requirements of an indictment and of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These safeguards are not available to the defendant in a civil action. The judgment awarded in this casewithout the need for any proof of actual pecuniary losswas one thousand…