Legal Opinion

People v. Windham

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 2006No. A111600PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

GEMELLO, J.

Defendant was arrested for domestic violence against his girlfriend. While he was in jail, he placed several calls to her, which were recorded pursuant to an announced blanket policy of recording all outgoing telephone calls by jail inmates. The prosecutor obtained recordings of the calls for use in defendant’s criminal case, and the trial court denied a motion to suppress. We affirm, holding that defendant impliedly consented to the recording of his calls and the recordings are admissible under federal and state law.

Background

The following factual background was taken from…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Berger v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Howard VAN POYCK, Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
  4. North v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  5. People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. GillilandSupreme Court of Kansas · 2012
  2. People v. Gomez CA2/6California Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. People v. MadrigalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2023
  4. People v. Sconce CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2014

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API