{"id":3359,"date":"2010-03-23T09:37:40","date_gmt":"2009-09-06T11:25:08","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2009-09-06T11:25:08","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=3359","title":{"rendered":"CO: No REP in a phone call made from a police interrogation room"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone call from a police interrogation room that the police were able to record the defendant’s end of. Perhaps recognizing that the argument was borderline frivolous, the defendant argued that his speaking in Spanish manifested a REP. People v. Zamora<\/a>, 220 P.3d 996 (Colo. 2009):<\/p>\n

On appeal, Zamora contends that he had both a subjective and objective expectation of privacy in his phone statements because he spoke in Spanish. Assuming, without deciding, that Zamora demonstrated he had an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in his phone conversation by speaking in Spanish, we conclude that his expectation of privacy was not objectively reasonable. Objective reasonableness depends on “whether the government’s intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.” Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 182-83, 104 S. Ct. 1735, 80 L. Ed. 2d 214 (1984). The objective reasonableness expectation is a fact-specific inquiry which takes account of all circumstances and is not tied to a single factor nor controlled by a specific formula. People v. Oynes, 920 P.2d 880, 882 (Colo. App. 1996); see also People v. Tufts, 717 P.2d 485 (Colo. 1986) (whether an expectation of privacy is legitimate depends on objective factors, not the individual’s subjective intent).<\/p>\n

Courts consider several factors in determining the objective reasonableness of an expectation of privacy. A person generally has no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications held in the actual presence of a police officer. People v. A.W., 982 P.2d 842, 848 (Colo. 1999) (citing Katz, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576); see People v. Smith, 716 P.2d 1115, 1118 (Colo. 1986) (defendant who was accompanied to telephone by jailhouse personnel does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone communications); cf. People v. Hart, 787 P.2d 186, 187-88 (Colo. App. 1989) (defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy where police officers, who were lawfully situated in an adjacent motel room, could hear his conversation without the aid of any listening device).<\/p>\n

The location where statements are made is also a factor in determining whether an objectively reasonable privacy expectation exists. People v. Lesslie, 939 P.2d 443, 447 (Colo. App. 1996). Statements made while in police car, People v. Palmer, 888 P.2d 348 (Colo. App. 1994), or inside a jail, People v. Blehm, 44 Colo. App. 472, 476-77, 623 P.2d 411, 415 (1980), may not give rise to an expectation of privacy. See also People v. Lee, 93 P.3d 544, 548 (Colo. App. 2003) (defendant did not have reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone calls from county jail). However, statements made in a private area of a public restroom may be subject to an objective expectation of privacy. Lesslie, 939 P.2d at 446 (defendant had expectation of privacy within restroom because it was legitimate to assume conversation was shielded from the public).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3359","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3359","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3359"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3359\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3359"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3359"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3359"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}