United States v. Angelo Amen, Mark A. Deleonardis, Michael Paradiso and Oreste Abbamonte, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners' Fourth Amendment rights
• holding that routine monitoring and recording of the calls of convicted prisoners does not violate the prisoners’ Fourth Amendment rights
• finding implied consent from notice in the Code of Federal Regulations, at a lecture, in an inmate handbook, in posted signs, and in a consent form
• where “defendants had notice of the interception system ... their use of the telephones ... constituted implied consent to the monitoring”
• “Appellants’ argument that taping their conversations violated the Fourth Amendment is also not compelling. As the Supreme Court construes the Fourth Amendment, prison inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy.”
• “If security concerns can justify strip and body-cavity searches, and wholly random cell searches, then surely it is reasonable to monitor prisoners’ telephone conversations, particularly where they are told that the conversations are being monitored”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).