Legal Opinion
Faunce v. Cate
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 17, 2013No. D062130PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McINTYRE, J.
Penal Code section 636 makes it a crime to eavesdrop on a prisoner’s conversation with certain individuals in situations where the prisoner has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) In this case, we conclude that David W. Faunce, a prisoner appearing in propria persona, failed to allege facts showing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment dismissing his complaint. We also dismiss Faunce’s appeal from an order denying his request for a preliminary injunction.
FACTUAL AND…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Davidson v. City of WestminsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Christensen v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Wong v. JingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Bernardino Cnty. Children v. B.F. (In re J.F.), California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- 640 Tenth, LP v. NewsomCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Arges v. LPL Financial CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Coleman v. Pasadena City CA2/1California Court of Appeal · 2016
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.