Court Opinion

ID: 9883283
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:39:30.920081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.325401
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Sutton
specially concurring:
Though I concur in the majority opinion, it is my belief that this court should go further and expressly condemn the use, in places of restraint, as conference rooms where attorneys confer with their clients, of any room which contains therein either secret or visible microphones or recording devices.
I contend that federal and state constitutional guarantees of due process of law, equal protection and the right to counsel mean the right to consult an attorney in private and in strict confidence, without the gnawing fear that someone may be eavesdropping or recording the conversation. At the very least, the psychological knowledge of an attorney or his client that someone may he listening in is in itself an improper and harmful restraint on full discussion and disclosure between the client and his attorney.
We should keep in mind that an accused may not always find it possible to prove that the prosecution has in fact eavesdropped. Also, even if he can prove such, it is conceivable that information could be illegally ob-*554tamed by eavesdropping that might be harmful to the defense, even though it may not have led to actual tainted evidence. The sooner we publicly brand eavesdropping for what it is, i.e., a forbidden and degrading practice, the sooner it will be eliminated.
To forestall this type of case from arising again, I suggest we use this opportunity to remind those few officials who may not now be so functioning, if there are any, that they have a duty to furnish a safe and proper place where an attorney may freely interview a client who may be in custody, in complete confidence without fear of being overheard in any manner.
In the instant case, in view of the fact that the room in question was labeled “interrogation room” and counsel was aware of the implications connected therewith, I agree that the procedure followed was proper and that this defendant’s objections are at the moment premature.