of privacy that is both subjective and objectively reasonable in the eyes of society at large. He summarized his view of the law as comprising a two-part test: The Supreme Court adopted Harlan's two-part test as a formulation of the Fourth Amendment search analysis for most subsequent cases involving governmental searches that generated constitutional challenges. Black's dissent Justice Hugo Black was the only dissenter in the decision. He argued that the Fourth Amendment was only meant to protect "things" from physical search and seizure, and was not meant to protect personal privacy. Additionally, Black argued that the modern act of wiretapping was analogous to the act of eavesdropping, which was around even when the Bill of Rights was drafted. Black concluded that if the drafters of the Fourth Amendment had meant for it to protect against eavesdropping they would have included the proper language. Impact and legacy The Supreme Court's decision in Katz significantly expanded the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protections, and represented an unprecedented shift in American search and seizure jurisprudence. Many law enforcement practices that previously were not "within the view" of the Fourth Amendmentsuch as wiretaps on public phone wiresare now covered by the Fourth Amendment and cannot be conducted without first obtaining a search warrant. The Katz precedent continues to be consulted regularly in relation to disputes over modern electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency and law enforcement entities, though with some concerns that the Katz test is becoming outdated due to modern surveillance technologies. However, Katz also created significantly more uncertainty surrounding the application of the Fourth Amendment. The Katz test of an objective "reasonable expectation of privacy", which has been widely adopted by U.S. courts, has proven much more difficult to apply than the traditional analysis of whether a physical intrusion into "persons, houses, papers, and effects" occurred. In a 2007 Stanford Law Review article, the American legal scholar Orin Kerr described the scholarly consensus that the Katz test has been a failure: See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 389 Notes References Works cited External links Katz v. United States from C-SPAN's Landmark Cases: Historic Supreme Court Decisions 1967 in United States case law 20th-century American trials Gambling in the United States History of Los Angeles Privacy of telecommunications Public phones Search and seizure case law United States Fourth Amendment case law United States privacy case law United