Summary judgment granted in plaintiff detainee’s claim that officers recorded a conversation between him and his lawyer

After plaintiff had been arrested, he was in custody and he asked to call his lawyer. The officers recorded the conversation, and it became a part of suit over his arrest. Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on his claim that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by their recording a conversation between him and his lawyer. Sherbrooke v. City of Pelican Rapids, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81730 (D. Minn. November 6, 2006):

Summary judgment is granted in Sherbrooke’s favor as to this claim. He had a clearly established right of privacy in his conversation with his attorney. This right was violated by the unconsented search performed by the officers, who should have known that their conduct violated Sherbrooke’s Fourth Amendment rights. As to Defendants’ argument that Sherbrooke failed to make efforts to protect the privacy of his call, there was nothing he could do while in a situation controlled by the officers. As in Jaras, consent cannot be reasonably implied from Sherbrooke’s failure to object where Sachs did not ask for his consent to execute the search. Accordingly, Sherbrooke is entitled to summary judgment as to his claim that the Individual Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right by recording his conversation with his attorney.

Two trucks were driving apparently in tandem too closely in Kentucky. One truck was suspicious because the fifth wheel was rusty and the sign on the side appeared hastily affixed. A full truck safety inspection was conducted, and the paperwork seemed odd. Finally, consent was sought and granted, and heroin was found by a drug dog. United States v. Garrido, 467 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. November 9, 2006).

Officer concerned by furtive movements in vehicle during traffic stop justified ordering defendant out of the car under Mimms. United States v. Steplight, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81712 (E.D. Pa. November 8, 2006).*