NY Kings Co.: Police led def to believe call from interrogation room was private

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone call from a precinct interrogation room from being recorded. While there is a diminished expectation of privacy in an interrogation room, there was no warning what happened in the room was recorded. The police essentially created a belief it was a private call. “Here, because there was neither notice to defendant nor evidence in the record that the recording equipment in the interrogation room was clearly visible and the monitoring of defendant apparent, this court concludes that it was reasonable for defendant to expect privacy in calls he made with the encouragement of the police and their ostensibly affording him privacy by leaving him alone in the interrogation room to make those calls.” People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 21352, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6650 (Kings Co. Dec. 23, 2021). Seemingly recognizing United States v. Cook, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 245891 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2021) (recognizing REP if defendant misled; posted above).

Officers had reasonable suspicion defendant was involved in a homicide when he was stopped. Witnesses described a tattooed man with the street name “Money” which was how defendant referred to himself on Facebook. He also had the tattoos. State v. Cyprian, 2021 La. App. LEXIS 2077 (La. App. 1 Cir. Dec. 22, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.