Prison inmates stated a claim where their prison calls to their lawyers were recorded by the provider without their knowledge. \u201cICS’ contention that the recording here was proper because inmates have a lowered expectation of privacy is inapplicable. First, while inmates may have less privacy in their communications with non-attorneys, they retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their privileged communications to their attorneys. \u2026 Further, the facts alleged in the Complaint indicate that Plaintiffs did not give their prior consent to have the conversations recorded and took steps to prevent any such recording.\u201d Wertz v. Inmate Calling Sols., LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39892 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s stop on foot for allegedly dealing drugs was based on an untested and unverified CI, and it lacked reasonable suspicion. His criminal record adds nothing. United States v. Evans, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39601 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Officers had an arrest warrant for defendant, and he was in another person\u2019s place without permission. Steagald is to protect the homeowner. Payton authorized the entry. United States v. Brown, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38946 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 6, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Prison inmates stated a claim where their prison calls to their lawyers were recorded by the provider without their knowledge. \u201cICS’ contention that the recording here was proper because inmates have a lowered expectation of privacy is inapplicable. First, while … Continue reading