Secured Police Vans Do Not Create Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Similar to regular police cars, police vans do not create a reasonable expectation of privacy, even when certain security features isolate the arrested individual from law enforcement

United States v. Paxton, 2017 BL 48962, 7th Cir., 14- 2913, 2/17/17.

The Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court’s suppression ruling, finding that defendants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the back of a police van. Without the expectation of privacy, video and audio recordings are not considered an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. During the criminal proceedings, the court suppressed evidence captured from a video and audio recording of five arrested individuals held in a police van. The court suppressed the video and audio evidence, reasoning that the double plexiglass windows separating the driver and the arrested suspects, thick steel panels on the van, and other security features created a reasonable expectation of privacy for the defendants.

In reversing the decision, the circuit court extended the established principle that there is no expectation of privacy in a police cruiser to police vans, even when there is an appearance of privacy. Additionally, the court pointed to recent incidents where serious injuries and deaths have occurred in police vans as external reasons for the need to maintain camera and audio recording equipment in the van.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Paxton_No_142913_2017_BL_48962_7th_Cir_Feb_17_201.

With Potential Civil Litigation, Government Cannot Destroy External Hard Drive

After the completion of criminal proceedings, the government cannot destroy a hard drive that may be used in potential civil litigation. 

United States v. Sember, 2016 BL 170363, S.D. Ohio, No. 3:14-cr-141, 5/27/16.

   After a jury found that a defendant did not commit theft of government property, the state attempted to recover a hard drive used in the trial to destroy the information. A federal district court in Ohio, however, prevented the hard drive’s destruction. The court refused to destroy the contested hard drive because the former defendant was preparing for a civil trial. “A party to civil litigation has a duty to preserve evidence, including electronically stored information, when it is put on notice that the evidence is relevant to existing litigation or may be relevant to future litigation,” the court said.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Sember_No_314cr141_2016_BL_170363_SD_Ohio_May_27_?1466032537