117 Ohio App. 3d 656 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]hether the monitoring of inmate phone calls violates the Fourth Amendment appears to be an issue of first impression in this jurisdiction. With near unanimity, federal and state courts have upheld the practice. See, e.g., United States v. Van Poyck (C.A. 9, 1996), 77 F.3d 285 ; United States v. Paul (C.A. 6, 1980), 614 F.2d 115 ; State v. Fox (Iowa 1992), 493 N.W.2d 829 . {¶ 58} "These courts have upheld the practice on one of two independent grounds. Some courts have held that when placed on notice of telephone monitoring, a prisoner does not have the requisite subjective expectation of privacy to incur a Fourth Amendment violation. See Poyck, 77 F.3d at 290 ; United States v. Amen (C.A. 2, 1987), 831 F.2d 373 , 379 . Other courts have held that society is not willing to recognize any such subjective expectation of privacy because the institutional interest in security outweighs the prisoner's privacy rights. See Fox, 493 N.W.2d at 832 ; United States v. Willoughby (C.A. 2, 1988), 860 F.2d 15 , 21 . {¶ 59} "We agree with both views and accordingly hold (1) that where a prisoner has notice of a telephone monitoring practice and elects to place a telephone call, he has no subjective expectation of privacy and (2) that a jail or prison is permitted under the Fourth Amendment to monitor telephone calls placed by its inmates in the interest of institutional security.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Myers, Unpublished Decision (6-9-2004) · State v. Dickey, Unpublished Decision (3-16-2007)

2. “Therefore, Babineau's claim that the trial court denied his motion to suppress based solely on its finding he lacked standing to challenge the search of McCullough's person is simply not supported by the record. Accordingly, Babineau's third assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 20} Judgment affirmed. HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur. 1. Although not at issue here, we note that the trial court correctly determined Babineau lacked standing to challenge the search of McCullough's person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Babineau

3. “The record indicates that [appellant] was aware that specific property would be forfeited if he pled [guilty]. * * * By entering into a plea arrangement and voluntarily relinquishing the forfeited property, [appellant] waived any procedural or due process right with respect to the forfeiture order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith, Ct2007-0073 (6-30-2008)