D.Minn.: Actual knowledge of jail calls being recorded isn’t required because of inmate handbook, signs on wall, and the sounds on the phone call

Testimony of actual knowledge that non-attorney jail calls would be recorded isn’t required. The inmate handbook, signs by the jail phone, and a notice in the call itself tell inmates that. United States v. Strother, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6185 (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2020):

In Lucas, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the combination of a handbook outlining call recording procedures, posted placards, and an audio message before the call meant that the defendant had given prior consent to the recording of his calls. Id. Strother’s case is no different. The absence of testimony that the signature on his call-policy waiver sheet was Strother’s is insufficient to outweigh the impact of the placards and two recordings played on each call Strother made. He had knowledge that calls made from HCJ were subject to monitoring and recording, and therefore consented within the meaning of § 2511(2)(c). The Court will therefore deny Strother’s Motion to Suppress.