MI: No REP in overheard jail conversations between cells recorded through intercoms

Defendants were in jail together, in separate cells 20′ apart (#1 & #4) and talking about their case through the doors’ openings. Jailers could overhear them. “When jail personnel noticed that defendants were communicating with each other by speaking loudly through their respective ‘bean chutes’ [the door slots], they activated the cells’ intercoms and recorded defendants’ conversations. Defendants made incriminating statements during the conversations.” People v. Bembeneck, 2022 Mich. App. LEXIS 380 (Jan. 20, 2022).

Defendant lacked standing in one cell phone that was searched but not another. United States v. Currie, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11338 (D.Md. Jan. 21, 2022).*

In a state search warrant, there was probable cause for installation of a GPS device on defendant’s girlfriend’s car that he often drove and for his apartment. Moreover, the good faith exception applies. United States v. Clark, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251322 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2021).*

This entry was posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.