Sep 042010
 
 September 4, 2010  Posted by  Court, Featured News, Surveillance

Law professor Susan Brenner writes:

As I’ve explained in earlier posts, the 4th Amendment protects us from “unreasonable” searches and seizures.

And as I’ve noted, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967), a “search” violates a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place or thing. Under Katz, you have a 4th Amendment reasonable expectation of privacy in a place/thing if (i) you subjectively believe it’s private and (ii) society accepts your belief as objectively reasonable.

This post is about an Ohio case in which the defendant made what I’d consider a . . . pretty expansive argument as to the existence of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Read her commentary and analysis of State v. Ingram, 2010 WL 299-865 (Ohio Court of Appeals 2010) on CYB3RCRIM3.   And no, the issue wasn’t the search of the car.  It had to do with statements Ingram made while he was in the back seat of the police cruiser, unaware that he was being recorded when no police were in the car.

Via PrivacyLaw.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.