Opinion ID: 2546826
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Telephone Calls

Text: Next, Decay contends that the circuit court erred in failing to suppress the telephone calls that he made from the Washington County Detention Center because he argues they were monitored and recorded without his consent. While he admits that federal courts have held that an inmate impliedly consents to having his telephone conversations taped, he contends that the lack of policy or procedure in place to exempt privileged telephone conversations between attorneys and clients makes the instant case distinguishable. The State responds that the circuit court did not err in admitting that evidence because the transcripts of the telephone calls that were admitted clearly indicate that all parties to the conversation were apprised that the call may be recorded or monitored and, therefore, there was not a reasonable expectation of privacy. A decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the sound discretion of the circuit court. See Rounsaville v. State, 374 Ark. 356, 288 S.W.3d 213 (2008). A circuit court abuses its discretion when in making a decision it acts improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. See Sauerwin v. State, 363 Ark. 324, 214 S.W.3d 266 (2005). Here, the telephone calls that were admitted into evidence were two calls made by Decay to his family, both placed on April 7, 2007. During the pretrial suppression hearing, Jak Kimball, the Information Technology Manager at the Washington County Sheriff's Office, testified that inmates must use the registration process to use the telephones. He stated that each time an inmate picks up the handset during the registration process, the first thing they hear is an automated voice informing them that the call is monitored and may be recorded. Kimball also testified that every call an inmate subsequently makes also begins with a recording stating that the call may be recorded. He did not think that the person on the other end of the line from the inmate also heard the same recording, but admitted he did not know for sure. The transcripts of Decay's telephone calls indicate that before any conversation began, there was an automated voice that stated This is AT & T[. T]his call may be recorded or monitored. I have a collect call from. There was then a pause for Decay to state his name. Therefore, not only did Decay receive the warning that his call might be recorded or monitored, the individual on the other end of the line that had to accept his collect call did as well. There is not an Arkansas case directly on point; however, the Eighth Circuit has ruled on this specific issue and, while not binding on our court, we find it highly persuasive. The Eighth Circuit has held that an inmate impliedly consents to the monitoring of his calls, even despite an inability to refuse such monitoring, if he was made aware of the prison's monitoring. See United States v. Horr, 963 F.2d 1124 (8th Cir.1992). Again, in United States v. Morin, 437 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2006), the court stated that when an inmate had been given a prisoners' handbook that informed prisoners that jailhouse calls would be monitored and there were also signs above the phones in the prison warning inmates of that fact, his recorded conversations were admissible at trial. In the instant case, an automated recording informed Decay during the registration process that the call may be monitored or recorded. Additionally, a recording again informed Decay, along with the individual to whom he placed the call, that the call may be monitored or recorded before their conversation could begin. Therefore, Decay was made aware that his telephone calls were monitored and recorded, he had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting transcripts of those telephone conversations into evidence.