E.D.Mich.: No REP in a police interrogation room

Defendant had no expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room that had a camera and microphone hidden in its smoke detector. He was overheard talking to his sister admitting that there was a gun linked to the crime. The police never told him it was a private place or that he could talk in private, and no case says that it is. United States v. Lattner, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197270 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2018):

Here, Lattner came to the police station voluntarily and sat for an interview related to the events of the day before. See Donaldson, 672 P.2d at 113 (holding that a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at a police station, regardless of whether they are in custody or there voluntarily). After some time, he asked to speak to his sister, and he confided in her that he believed that the police had found a gun in his pickup truck. Rushton and Bozek did nothing to lull Lattner into a false sense of security; they never, for example, told him that they could speak privately or advised him that they were turning off any recording devices. See Belmer, 553 S.E.2d 123 at 129 (citing cases in which a reasonable expectation of privacy existed because police had given the impression that the defendant could speak privately to others). Accordingly, because society would not recognize a police interrogation room as a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and because Lattner had no reason to believe that the interrogation room was a “sanctuary for private discussions,” Belmer, 553 S.E.2d at 129, Lattner’s Fourth Amendment and Title III arguments fail.

This entry was posted in Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.