E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment complaint that attorney-client communications in jail were overheard does not survive summary judgment. He was a mere eight feet from the jailer who could clearly overhear everything. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. Butler v. Pickell, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100744 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2023).

The warrant for defendant’s cell phone was based on probable cause and it was sufficiently particular. People v. Ozkaynak, 2023 NY Slip Op 03110 (4th Dept. June 9, 2023).*

Defendant generally challenges the stop and warrantless search of the vehicle simply saying he was putting the government to its proof to prove it was valid. It was, and the stop was not too long. United States v. Maluoth, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100719 (D. Neb. May 11, 2023),adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101030 (D. Neb. June 8, 2023).

The government conceded misstatements in the affidavit, and they proved to be sufficient for a hearing under Franks. United States v. Lauria, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 14465 (2d Cir. June 9, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.