WA: Undercover single party consent recording in defendant’s home not unconstitutional

Recording conversations by one party consent in the defendant’s home did not violate the Washington Constitution’s privacy provision. State v. Barron, 160 P.3d 1077 (Wash. App. 2007):

There is no expectation of privacy in selling illegal drugs to an undercover police officer, even if the sale occurs in the defendant’s home. And recording a conversation with the consent of only one party does not implicate article I, section 7’s privacy concerns. Thus, OHPD’s actions in this case do not give rise to a violation of article I, section 7 ….

Building code ordinance that required owner to submit floor plans to city for approval did not violate, inter alia, the Fourth Amendment because it was not a search. Berwick Area Landlord Ass’n v. Borough of Berwick, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51207 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2007):

Finally, as to the requirement that an owner submit a floor plan in order to obtain a license, we also believe that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches.” (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has held that in order to constitute a search, an individual must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring). In order to determine whether an individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy, we must determine whether the individual had a subjective expectation of privacy and whether that expectation is objectively reasonable. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740 (1979) (citing Katz, 389 U.S. at 351, 361). Applying these standards to the requirement that owners submit floor plans of each rental unit in order to obtain a license, we do not find that this requirement constitutes a search. Even if any of the owners did hold a subjective expectation of privacy in the layout of their rental units, we find that such an expectation is not objectively reasonable. The submission of a floor plan is much less intrusive than allowing an individual to actually enter a rental unit. Furthermore, the owner is submitting the floor plan of a rental unit that he or she has chosen to rent to a tenant in a commercial enterprise, not his or her own private residence. Finally, as defendant correctly points out, if we were to accept plaintiffs’ argument, a requirement that a builder submit his or her building plans to the local government for approval in order to obtain a building permit would constitute a search, which is a result that we cannot accept. (Rec. Doc. No. 23, at 10.) Therefore, we find that the requirement that owners submit floor plans of each unit is not a search and therefore does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, having rejected all of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claims, we will dismiss Count IV of the complaint.

Warrantless entry to secure the premises and protect potential evidence while police were off getting a warrant did not affect the procuring the warrant. The independent source rule saved the search warrant. United States v. Davis, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51209 (M.D. Pa. July 16, 2007).*

Female corrections officer patdown of male detainees did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Guillory v. Snohomish County Jail, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51190 (W.D. Wash. July 16, 2007), relying on Grummet v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 491, 495 (9th Cir. 1985).*

Search incident includes the area in defendant’s “immediate presence,” and this search finding drugs was lawful. The fact it was not under defendant’s “immediate control” [per the dissent] at the time is not relevant. State v. Venzen, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 839 (July 16, 2007).