E.D.Tex.: No REP in a cell phone call made in back of patrol car caught on dashcam

Defendant’s stop was valid, and so was the ultimate inventory of the car under Bertine. Defendant was in the back of a police car, and he called his grandfather and the audio was picked up on the dashcam video where he admitted to a gun in the car. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the backseat of the car. United States v. Gladstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95243 (E.D.Tex. June 29, 2016), adopted, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94724 (E.D. Tex. July 20, 2016):

In addition, Defendant did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the back seat of Officer Blair’s patrol car. United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897, 903-04 (7th Cir. 2015); see also United States v. Dunbar, 553 F.3d 48, 57 (1st Cir.2009); United States. v. Turner, 209 F.3d 1198, 1200-01 (10th Cir. 2000); United States v. Clark, 22 F.3d 799, 801-02 (8th Cir. 1994); United States v. McKinnon, 985 F.2d 525, 527-28 (11th Cir. 1993); United States v. Fridie, 442 Fed. Appx. 839, 841 (4th Cir. 2011); United States v. Carter, 117 F.3d 1418 (5th Cir. 1997). In Webster, the Seventh Circuit stated, and this Court agrees, that society does not reasonably expect to have privacy while in the back seat of a police car. Webster, 775 F.3d at 904. In coming to this conclusion, the Seventh Circuit described the numerous amounts of electronics in a police vehicle and the visible presence of devices that would be capable of transmitting any internal communications. Id.; see Turner, 209 F.3d at 1201 (“Patrol cars bristle with electronics, including microphones to a dispatcher, possible video recording with audio pickup, and other electronic and recording devices”); Clark, 22 F.3d at 801-02 (“[a patrol car] is essentially the trooper’s office, and is frequently used as a temporary jail for housing and transporting arrestees and suspects”). Here, Defendant was faced with a similar array of electronics when he made the phone call to his grandfather [Dkt. 33 at 2]. Following the Fifth Circuit (and six other circuit courts), Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in the back of Officer Blair’s patrol car.