NM: There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls, so admission in evidence did not violate constitution or any statute

Admission of jail telephone calls while the defendant was in pretrial confinement was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the state constitution, or the state Abuse of Privacy Act. State v. Johnson, 2010 NMSC 16, 148 N.M. 50, 229 P.3d 523 (2010).*

Defendant was not restrained, and his actions showed her that she wasn’t. State v. Maxie, 235 Ore. App. 49, 230 P.3d 69 (2010)*:

After [Officer] Pontius had written down defendant’s information, he closed his notebook and put it in his pocket, thanked defendant, and walked away. Pontius did not communicate to defendant his intention to make any use of the information, instruct her to remain while he ran a warrant check, or run the warrant check in her presence.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Pontius’s interaction with defendant was a mere conversation and did not impose a restraint on defendant’s liberty or freedom of movement. Because the evidence that defendant sought to suppress was not the product of an unlawful stop, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s suppression motion.

Defendant’s motion to reconsider the prior unpublished opinion’s conclusion that Gant did not apply because marijuana was the subject of the search is denied. This was an automobile search. State v. Wright, 155 Wn. App. 537, 230 P.3d 1063 (2010).*