Why did the majority of the Court reject the trespass doctrine in Katz v. U.S.?
The majority of the Court rejected the trespass doctrine that had been enunciated in Olmstead because they felt that a more expansive vision of the 4th Amendment was warranted. They felt that the 4th Amendment is meant to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures. This contrasts with the doctrine from Olmstead in which the Court held that it was places such as homes that were protected by the 4th Amendment. The Court held in Katz that the 4th Amendment was meant to allow people to protect their privacy whenever they were in a place (like a phone booth) in which they had a reasonable expectation of privacy.