The City of Green Bay installed listening devices in public hallways of City Hall to monitor all conversations there for security purposes. When they found out, plaintiffs sued claiming a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in such a way to not be overhead. They state a claim for relief sufficient to get to discovery. The fact plaintiffs can\u2019t yet say what was recorded and eavesdropped on isn\u2019t reason to dismiss, yet. Wis. State Senate v. City of Green Bay, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33131 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 27, 2024). [How did anyone in City Hall think this was a good idea and not a violation of the the Fourth Amendment and other state law?]<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Court, however, does not evaluate the issuing judge’s finding of probable cause piecemeal, but instead looks at the decision \u2018given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him.\u2019 Boles, 914 F.3d at 102. And McKnight ignores significant portions of the affidavit which contribute to the finding of probable cause. Indeed, the affidavit provided the court with ample information with which to make the \u2018practical, common-sense\u2019 determination required under Boles that there was a \u2018fair probability that contraband or evidence\u2019 would be discovered in the Infiniti. This is not a close call.\u201d United States v. McKnight, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33175 (D. Conn. Feb. 27, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The City of Green Bay installed listening devices in public hallways of City Hall to monitor all conversations there for security purposes. When they found out, plaintiffs sued claiming a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in such a … Continue reading