Court Opinion

ID: 9531767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:23.559625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:34.664125
License: Public Domain

MOSK, J., Concurring.
Since I dissented in De Lancie v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 865, 881 [183 Cal.Rptr. 866, 647 P.2d 142], I agree that De Lancie should not be applied retroactively.
*40I also renew my suggestion (id. at p. 882) that there is a simple solution to these recurring problems of monitoring jailhouse conversations. If signs were posted to warn inmates and visitors that their conversations are subject to being overheard and recorded, there could be no reasonable expectation of privacy. In oral argument in De Lancie, which involved San Mateo County, counsel conceded a general willingness to post such notices. Apparently, the word has not yet reached some other counties.