CA3: Carpenter just doesn’t apply to jail call recordings

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls admitted to prove a conspiracy, and Carpenter doesn’t apply. “While we need not decide how far Carpenter extends to other technologies, it does not apply to prison phone calls. Unlike an ordinary cell phone user who ‘in no meaningful sense … “assume[s] the risk” of turning over a comprehensive dossier of his physical movements’ when he turns on his phone, Carpenter, 138 S. Ct. at 2220 (quoting Smith, 442 U.S. at 745), Stinson and Jarmon did assume the risk of surveillance here. After being told their calls were monitored, they continued to discuss drug trafficking and other criminal acts. And unlike CSLI, there is nothing ‘unique’ or technologically advanced about prison phone calls that counsels for extending the Fourth Amendment to that milieu. Id.” United States v. Jarmon, 19-1652 & 20-1315 (3d Cir. Sept. 15, 2021).

There was reasonable suspicion on the totality to stop defendant for possibly being involved in an armed robbery. Commonwealth v. Privette, AC 20-P-251 (Sept. 14, 2021).*