{"id":10798,"date":"2014-04-09T17:24:44","date_gmt":"2014-04-09T23:24:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/wordpress\/?p=10798"},"modified":"2014-06-11T07:09:26","modified_gmt":"2014-06-11T12:09:26","slug":"ca11-warrantless-recording-and-monitoring-of-private-attorney-client-conversations-in-a-police-station-interview-room-clearly-violated-4a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=10798","title":{"rendered":"CA11: Warrantless recording and monitoring of private attorney-client conversations in a police station interview room clearly violated 4A"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Warrantless recording and monitoring of private attorney-client conversations in a police station interview room violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law, so no qualified immunity. [Talk about &#8220;clearly established law&#8221; &#8230;] <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca11.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/ops\/201213871.pdf\">Gennusa v. Canova<\/a>, 748 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 2014):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We begin with the warrantless monitoring and recording of the attorney-client conversations of Mr. Studivant and Ms. Gennusa. The district court held that Det. Marmo and Sgt. Canova violated the Fourth Amendment because Mr. Studivant and Ms. Gennusa had a &#8220;subjective expectation[ ] that their conversations were private&#8221; and because this expectation, given the confidential attorney-client nature of the conversations, was &#8220;objectively reasonable.&#8221; See Gennusa, 879 F. Supp. 2d at 1346-49. The district court also denied qualified immunity to Det. Marmo and Sgt. Canova. Acknowledging that there was &#8220;no case precisely on point,&#8221; the district court explained that since the late 1960s &#8220;it has been clearly established that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the police from electronically intercepting communications without a warrant when the speakers have a reasonable expectation of privacy.&#8221; See id. at 1349-50.<\/p>\n<p>On appeal, Det. Marmo and Sgt. Canova challenge the district court&#8217;s qualified immunity ruling on two grounds. They argue that neither Mr. Studivant nor Ms. Gennusa had a reasonable expectation that their attorney-client conversations in the interview room would be private, and that, as a result, there was no constitutional violation. See Br. for Appellants at 15-16. They also contend that it was not obvious to a reasonable officer in June of 2009 that monitoring and recording those conversations without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. See id. at 16-18. As we explain, neither argument carries the day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Warrantless recording and monitoring of private attorney-client conversations in a police station interview room violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law, so no qualified immunity. [Talk about &#8220;clearly established law&#8221; &#8230;] Gennusa v. Canova, 748 F.3d 1103 (11th Cir. 2014):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10798","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10798","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10798"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10798\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11969,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10798\/revisions\/11969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10798"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10798"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10798"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}