OH7: Def’s one phone call from station house was on a recorded phone with a sign it was; no REP

Defendant was just arrested, and he was given his one phone call before going to jail. The call was recorded, and the sign on the wall said it was. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the call. State v. McKeithen, 2019-Ohio-493, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 515 (7th Dist. Feb. 13, 2019).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress that she determined could not prevail. She was right: “Here, the search warrant included the fact that Defendant’s fingerprint was found on the cash register at the scene of a recent crime. The warrant permitted the officers to search Defendant’s home for evidence of the crime, including receipts from the business. Based upon these facts and circumstances, and the deference given to the magistrate’s determination, I do not find that had trial counsel challenged the warrant, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” State v. Ducette, 2019 Del. Super. LEXIS 83 (Feb. 11, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.