No expectation of privacy in a call to victim

Defendant called his alleged victim while police and a social worker were there. She put it on speakerphone and they recorded it. He had no expectation of privacy in the call. Bankston v. State, 4 So. 3d 377 (Miss. App. 2008).*

Officer lacked probable cause for a blood draw after a fatal accident because there was no objective evidence that defendant was intoxicated. Alleged consent at the hospital was not voluntary because defendant was told a blood draw was going to occur. Case v. State, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 720 (August 26, 2008):

The facts of the case lead us to conclude that consent was neither validly given, nor, in fact, given at all. Officer Griffith, under a mistaken belief that he had the right to require the Defendant to submit to a blood test, seized him and placed him in the patrol car against the Defendant’s parents’ wishes. He informed the Defendant that he was required to submit to a blood test, and the Defendant, understandably, did not attempt to refuse. When the two arrived at the hospital, Officer Griffith remained at his side throughout the procedure. Officer Griffith never asked the Defendant if he was willing to consent to a blood test; he merely informed him one was to take place.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.