Editing Potter Stewart (section)

===Fourth Amendment===
Before 1967, Fourth Amendment protections were mostly limited to notions of property: possessory geographical locations such as apartments or physical objects.<ref name=Friedman_Pg292>Friedman, Leon. ''The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions'', Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 292.</ref>

Stewart's opinion in ''[[Katz v. United States]]'' established that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places."<ref name=Friedman_Pg292/> Stewart wrote that the government's installation of a recording device in a public phone booth violated the reasonable expectation of privacy since the government was committing the "seizure" of callers' words.<ref name=Friedman_Pg292/> ''Katz'' therefore extended the reach of the Fourth Amendment beyond just physical intrusions and would also protect against the seizure of incorporeal words.<ref name=Friedman_Pg292/> In addition, the reach of the Amendment was no longer defined solely by property limits but now went as far as a person's reasonable privacy expectation.<ref name=Friedman_Pg292/> The ''Katz'' case made government wiretapping by both state and federal authorities subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements.<ref name=Friedman_Pg292/>

In ''[[Chimel v. California]]'' (1969), Stewart wrote an opinion stating that arresting a suspect in his house does not give the police the right to perform a warrantless search of the entire house, only the area surrounding the arrestee.<ref>Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)</ref>

In ''[[Almeida-Sanchez v. United States]]'' (1973), Stewart wrote that roving patrols of the [[United States Border Patrol]] must have some justifiable reason before stopping a car. They could not stop and search automobiles without probable cause merely because a stop was made within {{convert|100|nmi|km}} from the international border.<ref>Friedman, Leon. ''The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions'', Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 294.</ref>

In ''[[Whalen v. Roe]]'' (1977), Stewart, in his concurrence,<ref>Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)</ref> objected to any broad establishment of a right to privacy. He said that prior Court decisions did not "recognize a general interest in freedom from disclosure of private information."<ref name=Friedman_Pg304/>