court erred in determining that the defendants in this case had a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations that they had while in police custody after being arrested while being transported to basis whatsoever for the defendants to believe that they were in a sanctuary for private conversation now of course the fan with its defied it compartments is a stink from a standard squad car the day you know  in a car the detainees says in view of both the driver in the electronic equipment the radio the computer terminal and so on so that in a car that puts the detainees on notice factor but second secondly the fact that there's a dividing wall and there is there is some distinction and this specific experience does not in any way negate the fact that the that the defendants are well aware that they are being held in custody by the police and that they are the they their expectation of privacy is substantially diminished in fact what we what we say is that to make that distinction is to put undue emphasis on the issue of notice in fact that it basically puts notice as above everything else and makes it a dispositive factor because all of the other factors clearly w against any possible reasonable expectation of privacy and so it notices the issue then what we are saying is that individuals have cost have it reasonable expectations of privacy everywhere unless they are put on express notice that they do not and that's not the law and it's never been the line it shouldn't be the law i mean what has to happen here is that there has to be a subjective which your honour's know that there has to be a subjective expectation of privacy which we also challenge that that was the case here but it has to be one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable and it there's no distinction between  custody have diminished expectations of privacy it's long been held that they that prisoners have no expectation of privacy and their jail cell and police cars have been equated it and in fact they are police cars are and are universally known to be used for the purpose of controlling prisoners during transport and certainly there's no distinction between is squad car and  interrogation room when officers leave the room temporarily i mean a visual signs of surveillance simply are not required and in reality what we have here is a case in which the evidence itself shows that the that the defendants did not or did not have no expectation of surveillance in fact one of the defendants the sceptically said this this band  sign of but everyone knows which is that it is reasonable to understand their police car is equipped with recording equipment and i think that's but of course you had you the government would prefer they  they're not being bugged no no no that's what you want because if they know that or think they're being bugged they're not going to talk well they have any sense i mean just agree with the way that you're conveying that part but we let me disagree with the way that you're saying that what we want is for the defendants who are being transported not to or if it with respect to surveillance we want them to speak in a way that our we want to capture whatever it is they do say that is not to say that we don't believe that if they can't see the equipment they're going to think it's not there it's likely that it won't be you know so obvious you know hearing what i think i think you really hope that they don't think anything well because what you want to do is incriminate themselves but you know that judge this this is what i think is is is really an unfair kind of twist of the idea of criticizing this well but it suggests that what we are looking to do is what it what the defendants have i've argued which is that we are looking to obtain of a crime but they're also evidence of future crimes for example agreements discussions about how to escape how to destroy evidence who to contact on the outside to hide evidence case why else would you record people just been arrested unless for hoping that they're going to provide evidence you could use against them well there there are other aspects of this but but they're all they all turn into evidence eventually for example it may be that what we see them do is attempt to drop or hide a piece of contraband that we didn't catch in the search that's i guess that's incriminating but it also prevent contraband from going into the jail or into the police station right so there are there are kind of mutual issues here we want them to talk if they're going to talk about trying to get somebody to lie for them we'd like ok because you want to me you're not saying that there is the there that there are any problems about trying to obtain incriminating information oh no there are not that that any reasonable expectation why are there was no reason why expectation of privacy in there could not be wind and then specific nature of the car it bore those be a couple is not enough to separate this case from the unbroken line of expectation of privacy actually that the prosecutor focus has been to the extent that it deals with the expectation of privacy and not the miranda issue ha if the cross appeal really focuses on whether  he heard the statements of the codefendant regarding the the fact that the vehicle was likely bob and that is not a stemming that is a piece of evidence that can go in the column but that's not really what our argument is about what we're saying is that there's there the court erred in finding that there was a reasonable expectation here to begin with if we if we were to lose in the case we go to would have a chance with the other defendants who did not join his cross appeal to raise these issues at the end of the case the government as you know that's why we're allowed in there like three appeal would not have that opportunity if clear this this is a case where the officers clearly believed in good faith that they were behaving bluffly and they had every reason to believe that all those although this court has not held that the court the officers could rely on the court we are here yet again another stash house case which is this court well no it is prison and other troubling legal issues here this is a fourth amendment issue and it makes it a difficult case as are off worth in many cases because we are asking this court to go back in time despite knowing what we know now and to honor the fourth amendment and happened that now the defendants were placed handcuffed into a marked jail so why would it be reasonable for the defendants inspect that they had any greater expectation of privacy than they would have the record shows was at night they were taken from a warehouse at night put into this thing and so there is no evidence in the record that the defendants were able to see the outside of the knee and know it was a march out of the city and i don't think that's particularly important to to  court has told us that privacy rights don't stop altogether at the jail cell door we know that for maryland taking twenty thirteen in a given search is not acceptable just because someone's in police custody or hudson the palmer eighty four prisons are not beyond the reach of the constitution and this is what chief judge because steel found in williams the same decision judge gettleman meet here excepting the analogy of a mobile jail cell does not require the court to say the defendant had the objection that eavesdropping on criminals who are discussing their criminal activity like i said discuss innocent matters you know but the government is not interested in that all the government is interested in is what kind of evidence their conversations might produce and if all the government is is recording their keeping is such criminal conspiratorial talk how could that be a violation of any to take the first part of your question that supreme court case on this circuit case a very clearly said this recording is a search and seizure that's why we're under this this bucket of case law so that much is clear and it seems to me you're asking that whether the substance we then look at the substance of defendants conversation to see if they had a right to privacy and that would be taking the analysis backward instead of forward looking at what what is their objective x expectation of privacy and what is their subject i don't understand what is  they put someone in a van they have to get a warrant under the circumstances of this case where it was not a police wire car the layout is different as you noted earlier but just it makes sense to have one rule for for all types of  so numerous that every time you put someone and they enter a squadron we have to go and get a warrant what are we talking about it would have been not onerous at all for them to do an alternative which is to make the cameras visible or to a is that's another story that that's not onerous either so why do you think it's all right if they announce to these people that their conversations government just gave the example of when you're in a jail even their notice is provided above the phones in a in a prisoner manual you are consenting to be recorded you shall be considered recorded we don't have any of that type of official notice in this case to defend it's and indeed this was the discussion that came up earlier the agency did hype this as as you noted earlier with the press purpose of hoping defendants but you can understand the telephone because you know people have all sorts of of calls them what they talk about sean but  have a right to keep that secret unless the government has attained to or in in this case the government needed to get a warrant or get consent to hear that conversation in my in my example of two people playing  balance the interests the privacy interests that if in it in the government's interest in all those cases it's tasty security sanitation the government importantly here the a t f has never served in any of those interests in this case in fact the record shows the agents a squad car for the reasons that both district court judges here now have have explained so there's no question that as well webster tells you that there's you know the other thing that webster stands i  ought to object to or had a problem with at the time that was five months before the decision in this case and now the government is saying that that foundation which judge adams decision rest is somehow objectionable or wrong  expectation what what did he manifest it he showed to mr webster show that he wanted to keep this conversation private and nothing about what mr webster was doing changed after adonis theory speculated and it was just that the van might be bugged because there was no change had there been some reaction on mr webster's part might be relevant but because there was no reaction the idea that the officers believed in good faith that they could record wire up this thing and the case there was no case law on this to trick it in the other districts it was just about police cars not th and the supreme court has been clear that absent case by case of i'm clear case law courts need to exclude evidence to properly incentivize officers not to try to get evidence through questionable practices officers need to know that if we get this evidence through a questionable practice it might not be admitted so exclusion is the appropriate remedy here particularly where we see the a t f was acting deliberately and repeatedly  they had the knowledge the training the experience to get judicial authorization here or to get consent before they did what they did and this is important because the supreme court has said you need a judicial officer between the citizen and the police without it citizens are secure it's up to the police officers own discretion what a fourth amendment violation is and here we see the a t f introducing this new procedure trying to skirt around the requirements of the honor on the issue of good day this is not a case where the law was unclear absolutely not this is a case where every circuit that had decided the issue of reputed of twenty years had found that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police car or a police vehicle and a number of those cases did not deal with cars they dealt with other police vehicles moreover what if in reality what we would be saying is that the officers needed to anticipate that a year after their conduct  district courts one of them the district court in this case would make the distinction that the courts made in distinction in williams and in this case and and separate themselves from that line of unbroken president that's just not fair  this is a case where it is it is easy to see why it makes little sense and why a a rule like this would have little deterrent value if the only issue that that made it made the issue unclear for anyone anticipatory warrant could be obtained in that context it it really makes no sense and a failure to him to appeal judge because he owes decision and williams as your honour's know is not a sign of the government's agreement with the decision the government resisted that and and took the contrary view and there are lots of reasons most and most importantly in a case of the suppression issue the question of the necessity of the evidence is the question that is is most important in the decision to appeal a suppression issue so it's obvious that that is not in agreement with that with respect to the got the argument that the court has that the fourth amendment does apply in prisons yes of course it has and the court is and the work of the supreme court and courts have held that the defendant should be given the rights that are not inconsistent with with the needs of a prison but but the courts have consistently and repeatedly held that a unit there is no for the men right to end in a jail cell and that's the distinction that in that context there's there's just no no  way to afford that right consistently with the needs of law enforcement and here that it has never been there's no precedent for saying that there is for that there are poor men and rights in the jail cell and there is no public interest in allowing defendants criminal defendants who are transported together to have private conversations in a police vehicle when when they may be speaking about criminal conduct including as as your honor judge posner points out as a possibility they are plan to murder witnesses as part of an effort to obstruct justice i'm not saying that that happened here i'm not going to mean to suggest that but i am saying that that is one of the things one of the reasons why the interest of the government  lee reporting these conversations far outweighs any possible interest the defendants have in this context for these reasons the government respectfully request that the district board's judgment be reversed and the case be remanded thank you very much ok thank you very much those cows of course going to take a ten minute recess before