Brickbats

Brickbat: Listen Up

|

Eavesdropping
Lepasik / Dreamstime.com

The Alameda County, California, district attorney's office has thrown out the case against one juvenile defendant and is reviewing every juvenile case forwarded by the sheriff's office this year. The move follows revelations that the sheriff's office illegally recorded a conversation between the juvenile and his attorney and a discussion between two sheriff's office officials caught on video that indicated the practice was routine.

NEXT: Unions Change Their Tune on Janus Supreme Court Ruling

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck this, there was an episode of Andy Griffith where the sheriff had to explain to his 7-year-old son why it’s wrong to record conversations between a prisoner and his lawyer.

    Is this an episode of Are you Dumber than a 7 Year Old?

    1. So… the DA is reviewing the cases, but… where are the charges against the fuckpig who did the recording?

      1. Sadly, this probably isn’t a criminal offense under state law.

        1. Fed. Civil rights violation, though.

          1. There are no Federal civil rights in California.

        2. TFA says it is a California felony.

          TFA also quotes the body camera recording the deputy as knowing it is illegal but that the only penalty is that the recording is not admissable into court. I suspect that’s the “loophole” they will use to avoid charging deputies with felonies, just like Hillary got out of her charges.

          The King’s men will find any excuse possible to get the King’s men out of a tight jam. They will make shit up if they have to.

          1. Illegal doesn’t equal criminal. And if there is not jail penalty or the penalty is < 1 year, it can't be a felony.

    2. The days of kindly old Sheriff Andy Taylor are long gone.

      1. The problem is that we’re in the days of Sheriff Barney Fife, but instead of a single bullet in his pocket we’ve given him tanks.

  2. Classic Belichick violation.

  3. Secretly recording a conversation between a person in custody and the person’s attorney is a felony under California law. The district attorney’s office will investigate whether to file charges in the case, an agency spokeswoman said.

    “As result of this, we have retrained and spoken with every officer assigned (at the substation), and made sure that they are up to date on the policy and the fact that attorney-client conversations are privileged and not to be recorded,” [Sgt. Ray] Kelly said.

    Now, retraining and a talking to is the standard police response for everyone whenever there’s video evidence of the commission of a felony, right?

    1. Sure, same as with any civilian caught doing a felony – “don’t do that again; here’s a training video.”

  4. The law does not apply to those who enforce it. Only department policy. So if it’s not spelled out in the policy handbook, and not combined with training, then it must be excused. For example if the department doesn’t do routine training on how to keep one’s clothes on during an arrest, then forcible rape must be blamed on the training. Stuff like that.

  5. Well, duh, it’s a juvenile. Meeting with an adult lawyer. In private. Of course they have to record the meeting, for the child’s protection. The lawyer might be a sex trafficker, the under-age client is in a bind and easily persuaded to make a deal to get out of that bind, perfect situation for a sexual predator. These cops are nothing less than brave heroes protecting our children from being sold into sex slavery by monstrous evil-doers. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

  6. It’s probably just my natural pessimism coming through, but I presume that this happens to everyone having a conversation with their attorney while in a police custody. Sure, it’s illegal, but who’s going to arrest the cops for doing it? Who’s going to stop them? I figure the temptation is going to be strong, and since there is no fear of reprisal, they won’t have anything to stop them other than honor. And not that many people are so motivated by honor as to stop not only themselves, but to stop every peer who is not so scrupulous.

    1. You act like temporary desk duty and having to sit through 4 hours of video training is child’s play. I’d like to see you do it, mister! #ThinBlueLine

      1. Especially when you could be out on the streets bustin’ heads and shootin’ dogs.

      1. Link 1: “We don’t listen to them, they’re recorded over every 30 days. Except in that 1 case that we did listen to it, but that was a one-off.”

        Link 2: “Hey, we’re a private company. We can do what we want. Plus, we only video-taped you, we didn’t let it record audio, so that means we didn’t violate your attorney-client privilege.” Yay for libertarianism!

        Link 3: “[Securus] insists that there were no attorney-client calls recorded without the permission of both sides.” How much you want to bet the prisoners / attorneys have to “consent” to something along the lines of “By making/accepting this phone call you consent to being recorded by Securus and will hold Securus harmless in any legal situation that should arise from the use or misuse of said recordings.”

        I was actually discussing this with a friend like a week ago, and had told him that I’m sure that every jailhouse/prison conversation, whether in person or over the phone is recorded. He was shocked at my pessimism.

        1. I’m always shocked at the naivety of people who trust the police.

        2. “Yay for libertarianism!”

          Nice to see you can’t stop being an idiot no matter which sock you’re using Cathy

          Youoght as well have said “yay for planet Venus” or “yay for blueberry muffins”

        3. I was actually discussing this with a friend like a week ago, and had told him that I’m sure that every jailhouse/prison conversation, whether in person or over the phone is recorded.

          There’s little doubt that this happens. In fact, they probably record all conversations and then use “parallel construction” to get the same evidence through more legal avenues, this time they just got caught. I guess they didn’t cover their tracks well enough. That’s probably what the re-training was all about: how to cover their tracks better so that next time they don’t figure out where the evidence really came from.

      2. Private prisons should be outlawed.

        If government is going to incarcerate large amounts of people, they need to pay for it and run it.

        Private prisons allow civilians to be slavers with life and death control over inmates. Civilian companies should never get immunity from injury.

        1. I’m not sure why that comment is relevant. I can’t find any evidence that the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office uses a private prison.

          If you’re referring to Securus, the private phone service referenced in Jerryskids’ link above, that service is used in many prisons, both public and private. Nor, by the way, is it obvious that the government would be any better at designing a compliant phone system than the independent contractor.

  7. I wonder who this juvenile defended was connected to. A local politician perhaps? If it was me or you who complained I doubt it would have been taken seriously. The kid had to have had powerful relatives.

  8. How are they going to build a case of parallel construction if they don’t have these recordings?

    1. They figure out where to look from the recordings, then find what they are looking for “by chance”, and just never mention the recordings.

  9. Kavanaugh lied about his drinking during that testimony yesterday. That is according to his college classmates one of whom called into the Chris Cuomo show last night. The new witness is a Republican. She just happens to be an honest Republican and she was disgusted by the way Kavanaugh lied about his past. That dishonesty in the face of Ford’s credible and calm testimony should be disqualifying on its own.

    In addition Kavanaugh was evasive and looked like a deer in headlights when Mark Judge’s name was mentioned. It was striking seeing Kavanaugh flounder and babble without answering questions directly. I can imagine a guy like this being a judge.

    Another disturbing thing about his testimony was the way Kavanaugh mischaracterized the statements of the people Ford claimed were at the house. Kavanaugh falsely claimed all the people “said I didn’t do it”. That’s not what those people said. At best they said they couldn’t remember. That’s a big difference and a difference an honest good faith person would acknowledge.

    Ford was the opposite. She was open and honest about the facts as she best knew them. She didnt attacked the Republican prosecutor. The second part of that hearing was a disgrace because the Republicans wanted to make it about partisanship and not about finding the truth. Surely people with good conscience can see that.

    1. Save your trolling for an article on Mr K. There will be plenty.

    2. As best she knew them…

      I would think a psychology PhD holder would know that human memory is about as fallible as a divining rod is at finding water.

    3. Poor troll, cannot get your schedule to coordinate with a Mr. K article that will be posted on Reason today.

    4. “The second part of that hearing was a disgrace because the Republicans wanted to make it about partisanship and not about finding the truth. ”

      Lol

  10. Speak into the mic… testies…testies….1….2…

      1. Exactly!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.