DE: Investigating witness tampering justified SDT for jail calls

The AG subpoenaed jail calls, which defendant concedes could be recorded and that he had no privacy in. His argument here is whether there was a “substantial governmental interest in obtaining the prison phone records.” The state counters that they were seeking evidence of witness tampering. That’s good enough. Waters v. State, 2020 Del. LEXIS 391 (Nov. 23, 2020):

Waters attempts to distinguish this case and others by arguing that a person actually reported the alleged witness tampering in each of these cases, and no one reported the witness tampering here. But these cases do not establish any such prerequisite for showing a substantial governmental interest relating to witness tampering. Here, the record supports the Superior Court’s denial of Waters’ motion to exclude the prison phone calls. Moore’s sudden uncooperative behavior, Moore’s signed affidavit that was not drafted by him, and Waters’ previous conviction of witness tampering were sufficient to establish that a significant governmental interest was at stake. As such, the Superior Court did not err in finding the State’s subpoena reasonable.