News

Judge scolds sheriff for secret recordings of inmates

But says public defender failed to show practice is widespread beyond recent juvenile case

A judge last Friday scolded the Alameda County Sheriff's Office for unlawfully recording conversations between suspects and their attorneys but denied Public Defender Brendon Woods' request for a standing order barring that practice.

At a hearing packed with public defenders and inmates' rights advocates, Alameda County Superior Court Judge C. Don Clay said "the crime of eavesdropping is clearly illegal" and is punishable by a three-year state prison term and civil penalties.

Clay also said, "The sheriff is put on notice" that any violations will be prosecuted.

But Clay said Woods failed to prove that the practice of secretly recording conversations between defendants and attorneys, which was discovered in a recent juvenile case, is widespread.

Clay said, "The question is whether this video (of the conversation between the juvenile inmate and his lawyer) is a representation of a systematic issue or was it an isolated practice."

Clay said, "Based on the record before me, I'm not sure if it goes beyond this (the single recording) because there's no historical record."

Woods asked for a standing order against the sheriff's office after he obtained evidence that sheriff's deputies have been recording conversations between public defenders and juvenile suspects in custody, even though it is a felony in California for a third party to record privileged conversations between attorneys and clients.

A spokeswoman for the District Attorney's Office has said that it is reviewing all juvenile cases filed this year to see how many violations there have been.

The judge said Friday, "I know the District Attorney is investigating this."

He said if the investigation shows that the practice of secretly recording conversations between defendants and their attorneys is widespread "every judge in this courthouse would exclude those conversations" from being introduced as evidence.

After the hearing, Woods said, "I strongly disagree" with Clay's decision to deny his motion.

But Woods said, "I respect the judge for at least putting the sheriff on notice."

Woods said he will continue to investigate possible illegal conduct by the sheriff's office, saying, "We will pursue all avenues."

— Bay City News Service

What is community worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

1 person likes this
Posted by Member
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 13, 2018 at 12:45 pm

So it is a felony but it happened once so justice is not applied and the "system' won't do anything about it- the justice system won't impose justice on the offender(s) who committed a felony - because maybe they did not commit enough or repeated felonies? Why, because there is not enough proof that the party illegally record or committed a felony more than once, one felony is not enough to prosecute? There has to be a 'history' of felony behavior or a pattern of felony behavior to prosecute a felony offence? Since when? Protectionism at it's finest.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Don't be the last to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.