Opinion ID: 1613049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether benson received ineffective assistance of counsel by his trial counsel's failure to challenge the use of the entire audio tape recording.

Text: ¶ 12. Breeland testified at the hearing that he did not pursue an illegal search and seizure challenge during the trial because the State had testimony from two eyewitnesses and a confidential informant, as well as a tape recording of a voice identified as Benson's during the cocaine sale. Furthermore, Breeland testified that Benson stated he did not remember anything that day, so there was no means to pursue a search and seizure challenge. ¶ 13. Benson argues that Breeland should have objected to the use of the audio recording as a violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 41-29-503 (2001) and as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Benson contends that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his conversation with Lloyd. Furthermore, Benson argues that the officers were not Bureau of Narcotics agents and were not permitted to electronically intercept conversations, although Officer Oster was a contract agent of the Bureau of Narcotics. At the hearing on this issue, the trial judge found that under these facts the conversation was not one in which Benson had an expectation of privacy. Benson was monitored electronically while Benson sold cocaine to an informant. ¶ 14. We conclude that Benson has not shown how Breeland's failure to challenge the use of the audio tape recording constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, this issue was capable of being raised during the trial or on appeal. This issue is without merit.