The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the fourth amendment (right to privacy) applies where there is a 'reasonable expectation of privacy.' This phrase was coined in a case (Katz v. United States) where the Court protected the privacy of a conversation over a telephone in a public phone booth. In subsequent cases, however, the Court has ruled that a criminal (an inmate, probationer, or parolee) has a lesser expectation of privacy than an innocent citizen, thus creating a double standard for privacy based upon a person's character or legal status. This creation of a double standard for privacy fails to explore the ethical core of the fourth amendment as the basis for its consistent interpretation. In an entrapment case (Rochin v. California), the Court adopted the 'shock the conscience' test for determining the constitutionality of police investigative tactics. This has proven to lack precise ethical content, since what 'shocks the conscience' obviously varies among judges. It is imperative that the courts develop moral as well as legal consistency in their decisions so as to base law and its interpretation in a compelling moral framework of rights. Legal arguments should proceed from a coherent set of ethical principles that are at least arguably relevant to the constitutional issues involved in particular cases. One note is listed.