RI: REP in a police interrogation room when he was led to believe conversation with mother was private

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room while he was talking to his mother under both the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution when he was led to believe it was private. “Finally, the state cites to cases from outside Rhode Island in an attempt to persuade us that Mr. Brown could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interrogation room. This argument fails for two reasons. First, we have unmistakably held that the Fourth Amendment and article 1, section 6 of the Rhode Island Constitution protect people, not the locations they find themselves in. Sinapi, 295 A.3d at 800. Where, as here, interrogating officers create an environment that reasonably allows an individual suspected of a crime to believe that they may have a private conversation, an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of that conversation exists.” State v. Brown, 2024 R.I. LEXIS 47 (May 22, 2024). Update: techdirt: State Court Says There’s A Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy In Conversations With Non-Cops In Interrogation Rooms by Tim Cushing

The “pole camera which was installed outside Defendant’s house without a search warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment, so Defendant’s Motion to Suppress all images from the pole camera will be denied.” United States v. Delgado, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92713 (E.D. Mich. May 23, 2024).*

In a false tax preparer’s return case, a misstatement in a chart wasn’t material under Franks. Deleting the chart still left probable cause. United States v. Oliver, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92874 (N.D.W. Va. May 23, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.