[DV_listserv] Question needs Answer, please!

[Domestic Violence issues]

Good Afternoon-Please see the question below from Sarah Lundstedt. You can reply directly to Sarah or to me. Thanks! -Erin (See also, page 242 of the 2012 Search and Seizure manual for information on this topic).

Question: After State v. Moore (below), has your county's jail placed limitations (for example, PC or a warrant requirement) on your ability to listen to jail calls? Are you able to listen to any jail calls, and if so, what is the procedure? Do you order a CD or do you have access to the jail call system via internet?
My read of State v. Moore is that it should not affect our ability to listen to jail calls and I am trying to gather information to determine whether other jails are interpreting State v. Moore so restrictively.

Thank you,

Sarah Lundstedt, DDA Polk County

Email: lundstedt.sarah at co.polk.or.us<mailto:lundstedt.sarah at co.polk.or.us>


Date Filed: 12-26-2013
Case #: A144873
Sercombe, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Haselton, C.J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A144873.pdf
Criminal Procedure: Under Article 1 Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution a warrantless search of a pretrial detainee's cell is unreasonable unless an exception to the warrant requirement can be shown.
Defendant appealed denial of motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was accused of rape and accused of violating a restraining order. Defendant was arrested, and wrote a manuscript while being detained pretrial. An inmate informed police about the manuscript, and the police then performed a warrantless search and found the manuscript in Defendant's cell. Defendant moved to have the manuscript suppressed at a pretrial hearing according to Article 1 Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.  The trial court denied the motion and held the search was within the policy for jail searches. The trial court also held that Defendant was not entitled to an expectation of privacy in a jail cell. The manuscript was admitted into evidence and the Defendant was convicted. Defendant appealed denial of motion to suppress the manuscript. The Court of Appeals held that under Article 1 Section 9, Defendant's right to privacy was violated by the warrantless search that produced the manuscript. The Court further held that the manuscript was central to convicting Defendant on the rape charges and therefore most likely had an effect on the jury. However it would not have affected any of the other charges. Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part.

*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20140508/c8809652/attachment.html>