Post details: OH11: No per se rule that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room; here there was

11/19/13

Permalink 11:43:15 am, by fourth, 1071 words, 432 views   English (US)
Categories: General

OH11: No per se rule that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room; here there was

There is no per se rule that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room. Here, the microphone was hidden in the thermostat. It should have been suppressed; however, the harmless error rule applied. State v. Williams, 2013-Ohio-5076, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5278 (11th Dist. November 18, 2013):

[More:]

[*P31] An intensive inquiry into the facts is necessary to determine whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists in a certain place under certain circumstances. Given a certain set of facts, a legitimate expectation of privacy may exist though a person is under arrest and in an interrogation room. We do not believe that one can never have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room.

[*P32] The majority of cases conclude there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations that occur in police stations, including interrogation rooms. See, e.g., State v. Strohl, 587 N.W.2d 675, 682 (Neb.1999) ("[t]he greater weight of authority *** has consistently *** upheld the admission of monitored conversations in police stations"); Belmer v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 123, 128 (Va.App.2001) ("[g]enerally, the federal courts continue to find a suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy in areas controlled by the police"). However, these cases continue to make a fact-intensive inquiry into whether a reasonable expectation of privacy existed. There are important factual distinctions between these cases and the case at issue.

[*P33] Other courts have found a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room under facts similar to those presented here. See, e.g., State v. Calhoun, 479 So.2d 241, 244-245 (Fla.App.1985) (where there was a hidden camera and a Mirandized defendant was left alone to converse with his brother in an interrogation room pursuant to the defendant's request to speak privately with his brother, the conversation was not admissible); State v. Howard, 728 A.2d 1178, 1184 (Del.1998) (because there was no evidence that the defendant was told of the possibility of monitoring or that the defendant could see the camera, the defendant's expectation of privacy was reasonable).

[*P34] The state of Ohio argues that no reasonable expectation of privacy existed when appellant was left alone with his mother in the interview room; it relies mainly on two cases, both of which are distinguishable. First, the Seventh District has held that a defendant in custody did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room containing a two-way mirror. State v. Clemons, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 10 BE 7, 2011-Ohio-1177, ¶74-76. The Clemons court placed great weight on the presence of the two-way mirror in distinguishing it from other cases where it was determined that a reasonable expectation of privacy did exist. Furthermore, the Clemons court noted that the defendant had whispered the incriminating statements, indicating he was aware someone might be listening. Id. at 70. In this case, there was no two-way mirror or anything else to indicate the possibility of monitoring. Further, neither appellant nor his mother whispered during the conversation.

[*P35] Second, in Belmer v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 123 (Va.App.2001), the Virginia Court of Appeals addressed the surreptitious monitoring of a conversation between the defendant and his mother that occurred in the police station's interview room. The Belmer court emphasized that (1) the detective never stated the defendant could speak freely; (2) the defendant knew he was the subject of an armed robbery investigation; and (3) the defendant "had no reason to believe this interrogation room was a 'sanctuary for private discussions.'" Id. at 129. The Belmer court held that, under the circumstances, no reasonable expectation of privacy existed: the room contained a two-way mirror, the conversation was whispered, and signs were posted that indicated the interview rooms were being monitored. Id. at 125. The defendant did not see the signs, but his mother and her boyfriend walked past them. Id. In the present case, there was no two-way mirror, no signs posted, and no whispering by appellant or his mother. Thus, in Belmer, there are facts to support the holding that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy—facts that are not present here.

[*P36] The state of Ohio further takes the position that this case is similar to those related to the recording of conversations in police cars, where it is well-established that a detainee has no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. See State v. Ingram, 9th Dist. Medina No. 10CA0022-M, 2010-Ohio-3546, ¶17; State v. Blackwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87278, 2006-Ohio-4890, ¶33-35; State v. Skidmore, 12th Dist. Warren No. CA99-12-137, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 3535, *16 (Aug. 7, 2000).

[*P37] The Seventh District has commented on the similarity between a police interview room and the back of a police car, stating, "there is really nothing to distinguish a police interrogation room from conversations in the back of a police car." Clemons, supra, at ¶75. We disagree. Police cars are typically equipped with visible cameras or other recording devices. Therefore, an expectation of privacy in the back of a police car is not reasonable as a matter of course.

[*P38] The problem in this case is that the interrogation room contained no indicia that the activity could be monitored or recorded. Except for the table and chairs, it was an empty room, with no windows or other means of viewing into the room. The only other discernible object in the room was a thermostat. It is not reasonable to suggest that most people would expect a thermostat to be a video and audio recording and monitoring device. If the police truly believe that no reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy in such a room, the recording equipment should not need to be disguised.

[*P39] The reasons given for hiding a recording device in a thermostat are unconvincing. It is disingenuous to assert that the reason for the recording device is to protect against escape, suicide attempts, or the passing of contraband between persons. These goals are readily accomplished with visible equipment. Indeed, if the purpose is to discourage nefarious conduct within interview rooms, a visible camera would be more valuable because its presence would deter such conduct. Hidden recording devices are quite obviously intended to secretively gather evidence for use in criminal prosecutions.

[*P40] The interview room used in this case is actually designed and arranged to suggest activity in the room is not being recorded. As a result, a reasonable person, regardless of his status, would have an expectation that he is not being monitored. Thus, the statements should have been suppressed.

Pingbacks:

No Pingbacks for this post yet...

FourthAmendment.com

Notes on Use

April 2014
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
<< <     
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Search

by John Wesley Hall
Criminal Defense Lawyer and
  Fourth Amendment consultant
Little Rock, Arkansas
Contact / The Book
Search and seizure law consulting
www.johnwesleyhall.com

© 2003-14, online since Feb. 24, 2003

HWC e
URL hits since 2010

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fourth Amendment cases,
citations, and links

Latest Slip Opinions:
U.S. Supreme Court
(Home)
Federal Appellate Courts Opinions
  First Circuit
  Second Circuit
  Third Circuit
  Fourth Circuit
  Fifth Circuit
  Sixth Circuit
  Seventh Circuit
  Eighth Circuit
  Ninth Circuit
  Tenth Circuit
  Eleventh Circuit
  D.C. Circuit
  FDsys: Many district courts
  FDsys: Many federal courts
  FDsys: Other
  Military Courts: C.A.A.F., Army, AF, N-M, CG
State courts (and some USDC opinions)

Google Scholar
Advanced Google Scholar
Google search tips
LexisWeb
LII State Appellate Courts
LexisONE free caselaw
Findlaw Free Opinions
To search Search and Seizure on Lexis.com $

Most recent SCOTUS cases:
2009 to date:

2013-14 Term:
  Riley v. California, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog)
  United States v. Wurie, granted Jan.17, argued Apr. 29 (ScotusBlog)
  Plumhoff v. Rickard, granted Nov. 15, argued Mar. 4 (ScotusBlog)
  Stanton v. Sims, 134 S.Ct. 3, 187 L. Ed. 2d 341 (Nov. 4, 2013) (per curiam)
  Navarette v. California, granted Oct.1, argued Jan. 21 (ScotusBlog)
  Fernandez v. California, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L. Ed. 2d 25 (Feb. 25) (ScotusBlog)

2012-13 Term:
  Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958, 186 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
  Missouri v. McNeeley, 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
  Bailey v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 1031, 185 L.Ed.2d 19 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
  Florida v. Harris, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
  Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013) (ScotusBlog)
  Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (ScotusBlog)

2011-12 Term:
  Ryburn v. Huff, 132 S.Ct. 987, 181 L.Ed.2d 966 (2012) (other blog)
  Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S.Ct. 1510, 182 L.Ed.2d 566 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
  United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945, 181 L.Ed.2d 911 (2012) (ScotusBlog)
  Messerschmidt v. Millender, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012) (ScotusBlog)

2010-11 Term:
  Kentucky v. King, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
  Camreta v. Greene, 131 S.Ct. 2020, 179 L.Ed.2d 1118 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
  Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (ScotusBlog)
  Davis v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 2419, 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011) (ScotusBlog)

2009-10 Term:

  Michigan v. Fisher, 558 U.S. 45, 130 S.Ct. 546, 175 L.Ed.2d 410 (2009) (per curiam) (ScotusBlog)
  City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. 746, 130 S.Ct. 2619, 177 L.Ed.2d 216 (2010) (ScotusBlog)

2008-09 Term:
  Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 129 S.Ct. 695, 172 L.Ed.2d 496 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
  Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
  Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
  Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009) (ScotusBlog)
  Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (ScotusBlog)


Research Links:
  Supreme Court:
  SCOTUSBlog
  S. Ct. Docket
  Solicitor General's site
  SCOTUSreport
  Briefs online (but no amicus briefs) 
  Curiae (Yale Law)
  Oyez Project (NWU)
  "On the Docket"–Medill
  S.Ct. Monitor: Law.com
  S.Ct. Com't'ry: Law.com

  General (many free):
  LexisWeb
  Google Scholar | Google
  LexisOne Legal Website Directory
  Crimelynx
  Lexis.com $
  Lexis.com (criminal law/ 4th Amd) $
  Findlaw.com
  Findlaw.com (4th Amd)
  Westlaw.com $
  F.R.Crim.P. 41
  www.fd.org

  FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (2008) (pdf)
  DEA Agents Manual (2002) (download)
  DOJ Computer Search Manual (2009) (pdf)

  Congressional Research Service:
    Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
    Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (2012)
    Outline of Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
    Federal Statutes Governing Wiretapping and Electronic Eavesdropping (2012)
    Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions (2012)

  ACLU on privacy
  Privacy Foundation
  Electronic Privacy Information Center
  Criminal Appeal (post-conviction) (9th Cir.)
  Section 1983 Blog

"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't."
—Me

"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud

"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
Williams v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold, J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).

"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence."
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).

Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment.
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today."
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).

"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their property."
Entick v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)

"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth Amendment."
United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)

"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).

"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the bottom of a turntable."
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)

"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)

“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)

“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
United States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)

"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need."
—Mick Jagger & Keith Richards

"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration camp]

“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!”
Pepé Le Pew

"There is never enough time, unless you are serving it."
Malcolm Forbes

"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime."
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)


Misc

XML Feeds

What is RSS?

Who's Online?

  • sypecrucceeme Email
  • fuhintoneetef Email
  • chaphsiperype Email
  • oppopezed Email
  • vomozigocog Email
  • hildevavalm Email
  • autociava Email
  • himbdyday Email
  • illilmbiostus Email
  • jinonoforse Email
  • immuctiohic Email
  • comeensuche Email
  • wearsehem Email
  • emunlinuifofs Email
  • ketitesetug Email
  • n8psrzqgca Email
  • merzerenunc Email
  • gopiestinee Email
  • suegreefult Email
  • excexycheetry Email
  • noistnoxolo Email
  • spisyfoes Email
  • repflielt Email
  • alobabera Email
  • scargaice Email
  • cyperewly Email
  • exitiettwesee Email
  • shourryhego Email
  • jolosizezef Email
  • essexisalaync Email
  • ujogjvfr Email
  • iteptinenna Email
  • deannydwerm Email
  • vemaddidgetat Email
  • boypepelelync Email
  • gypeplaipiz Email
  • Guest Users: 160

powered by
b2evolution