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.

NV and 6th Cir. Agree, Fourth Amendment Does Not Protect Cell Location Data

Cell phone customers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records of cell tower usage kept by wireless carrier that reveal where phones were used.

United States v. Carpenter, 2016 BL 114989, 6th Cir., No. 14-1572, 4/13/16;
Taylor v. State, 2016 BL 127001, Nev., No. 65388, 4/21/16

    In Carpenter, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that police may rely on court orders rather than search warrants to gather information about a suspect's movements through phone records because customers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the company's records of cell tower usage. The court distinguished content from "routing information" by saying "[c]ontent, per this distinction, is protected under the Fourth Amendment, but routing information is not." The monitoring of how communications travel "from point A to point B" is not protected.

    In Taylor, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that customers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell tower location records that reveal the general areas where the phones were used. This court determined that the information was considered business records that belonged to a third party. The court stated that "a warrant requiring probable cause was not required before obtaining that information" "because Taylor does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in business records made, kept and owned by his provider."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/UNITED_STATES_OF_AMERICA_PlaintiffAppellee_v_No_TIMOTHY_IVORY_CAR?1463070438

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Taylor_v_State_No_65388_2016_BL_127001_Nev_Apr_21_2016_Court_Opin?1463582294

A Dog's Sniff In A Common Hallway Requires A Warrant

A warrant is required for police to use dogs to sniff in an apartment building's common hallway.

United States v. Whitaker, 2016 BL 113879, 7th Cir., No. 14-3290, 4/12/16

     The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the police violated the Fourth Amendment when they walked a drug-sniffing dog up to a suspect's door in a common hallway of an apartment building and used the dog's "alert" as probable cause to get a search warrant.

     This is the first time that a federal circuit court extended the dog-sniff rule elicited in Florida v. Jardines, 2013 BL 79684 (U.S. 2013) (92 CrL 781, 3/27/13), to include shared hallways in apartment buildings.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Whitaker_No_143290_and_143506_2016_BL_113879_7th_?1463068355

Diminishes Privacy Expectation for Those in Pretrial Intervention Programs

Probation officers legitimately executed a warrantless search, based on reasonable suspicion, of the house of a man in a pretrial intervention program.

 

Castillo v. United States, 2016 BL 77940, 11th Cir., No. 13-11757, 3/15/16

     The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit used the same rationale that is used to justify warrantless searches of probationers and parolees; namely, the state's strong interest in rehabilitating persons who enter pretrial intervention.

     The man had a diminished expectation of privacy in his home because he had entered into a pre-trial intervention program as a part of a deferred prosecution agreement. Furthermore, the court rejected an ineffective assistance of counsel claim for failing to contest the search, because the officers acted after receiving an solid tip which led to "reasonable suspicion" that the defendant possessed a firearm, which was a violation of his deferred prosecution agreement.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Castillo_v_United_States_No_1311757_2016_BL_77940_11th_Cir_Mar_15?1459453775

Only One Party Needs to Consent to Telephone Taps in Connecticut.

As long as one party to a conversation gives consent, the Connecticut Constitution does not require police to obtain a warrant before recording phone calls.

 

State v. Skok, 2015 BL 289964, Conn., No. SC 19415, 9/15/15

     The Connecticut Supreme Court indicated that all federal courts and an "overwhelming majority" of state courts follow the one-party-consent exception to the warrant requirement. The reasoning of these courts is that a person using a phone to further criminal activity does not have control over who the other person shares the conversation with, or allows to listen in.

     The court here also indicated that the defendant's claim of reasonable expectation of privacy was undermined because she repeatedly reminded the other party to make sure that family members would not overhear the conversations.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/State_v_Skok_No_SC_19415_2015_BL_289964_Conn_Sept_15_2015_Court_O