This thread in the pit links to an article about a man who was videotaped committing a crime by the police (having sex with his comatose wife). However, the videotape was ruled inadmissible because the man had an ‘expectation of privacy’ in his wife’s room in the nursing facility.
According to the article, that was considered an ‘unreasonable search’ and in violation of the man’s 4th Amendment rights.
I’m not arguing this, I’d just like someone to explain it to me so I can understand the logic.
I mean, can’t the police, with a warrant, gain access to my home? I certainly have an expectation of privacy here, but couldn’t they knock on the door one day with a court order that says they are allowed to search my house? Good bye privacy!
How is this situation different? The article hints that some of the reason might have to do with the fact that the victim was his (comatose) wife, and that implies some degree of privacy beyond the norm?
The important part there is they obtained a warrant. That is the whole point of warrants. The police need to prove to a court they have a compelling reason to violate your privacy (e.g. search your house) before being allowed to do so.
Now being in a hospital (or nursing home) I am not sure how that calculation changes. It is not HIS place to expect privacy in. Guess the courts thought he did though.
I believe the problem is, the police did not consider what they were doing a search of a protected private place, and believed they needed no warrant… but it turns out it was a search in a place where privacy may be reasonably expected, so Constitutional rights were violated, thus suppression.
So the issue isn’t “can’t they search my home with a warrant” – which as you know, they can – it’s “can they search a place I treat as a home without a warrant” – the answer turns out to be no.
Wisconsin law provides that all nursing home residents have a right to privacy for spousal visits. However, the hospital got a waiver from the Department of Health and Family Services so the hospital wouldn’t have to follow that.
The police got a search warrant to videotape the room. But the opinion says: “The circuit court ruled that the search warrant was improperly executed; the State does not contest that determination.” So, apparently, the search warrant was somehow (it doesn’t explain) invalid and the State had to rely on an argument that the guy DIDN’T have a ReaExpPriv in the room.
The issue that was decided was whether or not a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his spouses’ room. In order for a search to violate the 4th Amendment, a person must show that he/she has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the place, area, or item searched. Your house is the usual example, but hotel rooms, your car, a place where you happen to sleep at after a party (“overnight guests”), etc. are all tougher issues. If you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy, a search isn’t going to violate the 4th Amendment.
To have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an area, a person must have 1) a SUBJECTIVE expectation of privacy AND that that expectation is one that society thinks is reasonable. As far as the subjective part, the court found that, since he closed the door and from previous visits, he certainly met that prong.
The question then becomes does society recognize a privacy right in spousal hospital rooms to be legitimate or justifiable. The court looked at the following factors: “(1) whether the accused had a property interest in the premises; (2) whether the accused is legitimately (lawfully) on the premises; (3) whether the accused had complete dominion and control and the right to exclude others; (4) whether the accused took precautions customarily taken by those seeking privacy; (5) whether the property was put to some private use; [and] (6) whether the claim of privacy is consistent with historical notions of privacy.”
The Court concluded: “based on our review of the factors and the totality of the circumstances in this case, we are satisfied that Johnson’s expectation of privacy while visiting his wife in her nursing home room is one that society would recognize as reasonable.”
It appears from the opinion that somehow the cops messed up and the warrant they obtained was invalid. Since the 4th Amendment only protects people from governmental searches of items or areas in which they have a “reasonable expectation of privcay” and since nursing home rooms do have that for spouses, the search was illegal.