IA: Court ordered privilege review of search was at its expense

When the court orders privilege review for the results of a search, it’s a court expense. State v. Iowa District Court for Emmet County, 2024 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 52 (May 10, 2024).

“Lenhart does not assert fraud on the court, seek to clarify the mandate, or identify a clerical mistake. He instead attempts to relitigate the Fourth Amendment claim that this court fully considered and rejected on direct appeal. If Lenhart believed that the court’s adjudication of that claim was in error, he should have timely petitioned for panel or en banc rehearing before this court or petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. He did not do so, and he cannot now obtain a belated rehearing of his direct appeal via a motion to recall the mandate.” United States v. LeNhart, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11450 (6th Cir. May 9, 2024).*

Defendant had a zoom call with a prison inmate that was recorded, about which he was told was being monitored, and which ended up being evidence in his own criminal trial for his admissions of criminality. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the call. United States v. Campbell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84976 (E.D. Pa. May 10, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.