Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment 20th Edition by David Twomey,Marianne Jennings

Exercise 9

The police intercepted a telephone call that one of its informants placed from the police station where he was working with officers. All of the informant's phone calls were being monitored with his consent. The informant called the defendant at his home. Based on the content of that conversation, officers were able to obtain a warrant that permitted them to search the luggage of the defendant who was arriving in Miami from an overseas trip. The defendant's luggage contained cocaine. When the defendant was charged with possession of drugs, he challenged the warrant because it was based on an invasion of privacy of his phone conversation with the informant. The informant did not realize that this particular conversation was being monitored. Is there an expectation of privacy in phone conversations at the police station? Is there an expectation of privacy by the defendant for phone calls in his home? The police argue they were allowed to intercept the calls because the technology was available and because one side had consented. Was the warrant valid? [ Commonwealth v Rekasie, 778 A2d 624 (Pa)]