Court Opinion

ID: 9574259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:03:44.253377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:17.875685
License: Public Domain

SINGLETON, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the court’s disposition of all issues except the suppression of the recording of Quinto’s remarks to the arresting officer. I cannot see how anyone could have an expectation of privacy in the contents of a conversation with a uniformed police officer. Palmer v. State, 604 P.2d 1106, 1108 (Alaska 1979), and see People v. Crowson, 33 Cal.3d 623, 190 Cal.Rptr. 165, 660 P.2d 389 (Cal.1983) (defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while seated in back seat of police car with accomplice so that surreptitious tape-recording of their conversation was admissible in evidence).