Comments on: Sheriff’s New Jail Phone Policy May Violate U.S. Constitution (Or Maybe It Doesn’t)

By: Kemp Brinson

Kemp Brinson — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:25:36 +0000

Susan, I’m pretty sure that that the message was that all calls were being recorded, not “subject to” recording, but I don’t know. Regardless of what the inmate may know, if an attorney hears a notice that his call with his client may have the smallest possibility of being recorded, the attorney should know not to have the conversation.

By: Kemp Brinson

Kemp Brinson — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 02:22:50 +0000

I just discovered that a lot of comments were being inappropriately flagged as spam without me seeing them. My apologies.

By: L.

L. — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:41:46 +0000

In his interviews Sheriff Judd has a tendency to categorize all inmates within his jail system as “criminals” and uses this to justify his policies regarding these individuals. Sheriff Judd, being a man of the law, should be fully aware that just because an individual is arrested for a crime does not necessarily make one guilty, that is a matter for the courts to decide. I am certain that the PCSO does not have a 100% conviction rate for all of their arrests. It appears that Sheriff Judd has implemented this policy, not for the benefit of the public or to uphold the law, but to somehow punish the inmates. In the end it will be the tax payers who will be punished.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 03:52:03 +0000

In my view, Judd’s action is likely unconstitutional.

With most almost all constitutional questions the US Supreme Court uses some type of balancing test, explicitly or not.

In this instance we have a burden, however slight, being placed upon the exercise of Sixth Amendment protections.

This burden is placed in order to further the legitimate public interest of… of…

::crickets::

I can’t even think of a plausible rational basis for this practice.

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:06:33 +0000

But I don’t think anyone would argue that if you get a recorded message saying “This call is being recorded,” you don’t really have a reasonable expectation that your conversation is private. That’s just common sense.

Wait a minute there. Was that the EXACT message or did they say that “this call was SUBJECT to monitoring or recording”? Because I’m not a crook, nor have I been arrested, but I do believe that I have a right to consult with my attorney in private and would assume that they didn’t mean they were recording my conversations with my attorney – or my priest for example unless they said something like:

“This call is being recorded, anything you say could be used as evidence against you in a court of law etc”

I have a hard time believing this is legal and even harder time believing it is ethical.