E.D.Tenn.: Lack of warning book-in phone was being recorded required suppression under Title III; Fourth Amendment issue not decided

Defendant made a call on a jail phone from the booking area that had no sign or warning on the call that the call was being recorded. The Fourth Amendment generally means that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a jail, but what about pre-jail? The court decides the case on Title III grounds that there had to be a warning that the call was being recorded. United States v. Houston, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30428 (E.D. Tenn. February 18, 2015).

“[W]e decline Prusha’s invitation to craft a ‘per se’ requirement [under the state constitution] for police to inform an individual of their right to decline to consent to a search in the context of a community caretaking stop.” State v. Prusha, 2015 Iowa App. LEXIS 231 (March 11, 2015) (memorandum opinion).*

Entry into defendant’s home was justified after he threatened a fire marshal with a gun, was generally acting crazy, and going in and out of his house, and there was another person inside. When the police arrived, they could force entry into the home on exigent circumstances. State v. Laney, 2015-Ohio-852, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 815 (5th Dist. March 9, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Emergency / exigency, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.