OR: Police listening to attorney-client jail calls because attorney calls not properly segregated leads to dismissal of some counts and setting aside guilty plea

The jail computer controlled phone system did not properly block attorney-client telephone calls, and the police listened to defense counsel’s conversations with defendant in jail. The police then used that information to supersede the indictment. Prejudice is presumed. State v. Greenwood, 332 Ore. App. 166 (Apr. 24, 2024).

The plaintiffs’ property was subjected to an administrative search warrant after they refused consent to an administrative inspection. Dismissal of their Fourth Amendment claim is affirmed, almost summarily. Berkemeier v. City of Jackson, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 9881 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2024).*

Despite the scheduling order saying that a motion to suppress needed an affidavit of standing, this motion didn’t have one. Denied. United States v. Glover, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74074 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Burden of pleading, Prison and jail searches, Privileges, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.