Criminal Procedure

Procedural History:

• Trial court denies suppression motion.
• Affirmed.

Facts:

• McDonough was robbed on March 5.
• Victim gave police a description of the robber and the vehicle.
• Victim then began receiving threatening phone calls from the robber.
• At one point, the robber had victim step outside and saw the same car she had seen after the robbery.
• Police then installed a pen registry to record the numbers that were dialed from petitioners home.
• Pen Register was installed with the consent of the phone company.
• It showed that the defendant was making phone calls to the victim.
• D says the installation of the pen register was illegal and was a violation of his 4^th amendment rights.
• The private entity, the phone company, was acting at the request of the government.

Issue:

• Is the use of a pen registry without the consent of the defendant a violation of their 4^th amendment rights?

Holding:

• No. You have no expectation of privacy in regards to the numbers being dialed.

Reasoning:

• There is a difference between the conversation and the numbers dialing.
• If all were talking about is the number being dialed, there is no expectation of privacy.
• Just because he said after the fact that he expected privacy, doesn’t mean that the court has to believe he had an expectation of privacy.
• The court doesn’t think there is an expectation because he had to turn the phone numbers over to the phone company.
• The court believes that once you knowingly expose information to another that there is a chance it will be communicated to others.
• The court doubts whether the D actually had an expectation of privacy.
• The majority thinks you have a choice and you don’t have to turn your numbers over. Use a different method of communication.