United States v. Samuel John Passarella

How courts have described this case

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

• allowing a government agent to answer a residential telephone when he was lawfully present pursuant to an arrest warrant
• every state and federal court that has addressed similar facts has concluded that an agent’s conduct in answering a telephone while lawfully on the premises is not violative of the Fourth Amendment
• defendant who did not participate in the conversation had no expectation of privacy in words of another during phone conversation with agents legitimately on premises pursuant to arrest warrant
• no privacy interest in conversations one is not a part of
• “[0]nce lawfully present, the police may answer a ringing telephone.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).