People v. Gallegos
| Citation | 179 Colo. 211,499 P.2d 315 |
| Decision Date | 24 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 24949,24949 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Gene GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E DeRoos, Sara Duncan, Asst. Attys. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Randolph M. Karsh, Lee Belstock, Deputy State Public Defenders, for defendant-appellant.
Appellant Gallegos was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to inflict bodily injury, and conspiracy to commit the same offense. One Sandoval was shot in the leg, allegedly by defendant, during an altercation between two groups of people. After being arrested, arraigned, and while in county jail, appellant made several telephone calls in order to retain counsel. A portion of one of these calls was overheard by the jailer. Defendant was heard to say: 'I was the one who shot him.' Although objected to, and after an In camera hearing, the jailer was allowed to testify to overhearing the statement.
Defendant first contends that the act of the jailer in overhearing his conversation represented an intrusion into defendant's right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We disagree. The Fourth Amendment protects one who has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. However, '(w)hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.' Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. After the hearing in the instant case to determine whether testimony regarding defendant's statement should be suppressed, the lower court found that the statement was 'voluntarily made by (defendant) knowing that (the jailer's) presence was imminent.' No transcript of the evidence considered by the lower court was made a part of the record by appellant, and in the absence of any showing to the contrary we must presume that the findings are supported by the evidence presented to and considered by the court. Kelley v. People, 120 Colo. 1, 206 P.2d 337.
Defendant's next contention is that the jailer's act of overhearing his conversation with an attorney operated to deny to defendant his right to effective representation of counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In this connection, defendant relies on cases in which the facts are so distinguishable as to constitute no authority for the contention urged. In State v. Cory, 62 Wash.2d 371, 382 P.2d 1019, conversations between an accused and his lawyer which took place in an attorney-client consultation room at police headquarters were surreptitiously monitored by the police. In Fowler v. State, 6 Md.App. 651, 253 A.2d 409, counsel requested a private interview with the accused, then undergoing custodial interrogation, but was only allowed to speak with him in the presence of numerous police officers. In Flaherty v. Warden, 155 Conn. 36, 229 A.2d 362, counsel's request for more privacy while interviewing a client in prison was refused, even though two guards were in a position to overhear the conversation and even though there existed facilities used by law enforcement personnel to interview prisoners privately. In Ex Parte Qualls, 58 Cal.App.2d 330, 136 P.2d 341, jail authorities refused to allow counsel to consult with his client other than in the presence of other attorneys...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...a telephone by jailhouse personnel does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone communications. People v. Gallegos, 179 Colo. 211, 499 P.2d 315 (1972); State v. McKercher, 332 N.W.2d 286 (S.D.1983); see also People v. Blehm, 44 Colo.App. 472, 623 P.2d 411 (1980); Peopl......
-
People v. Blehm
...was private. This test has previously been applied in Colorado in situations involving detention facilities. In People v. Gallegos, 179 Colo. 211, 499 P.2d 315 (1972), it was determined that a prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated by the use of comments he made while talking on......
-
Abu-Nantambu-El v. State
...that the district court’s finding that all of the convictions arose out of the same incident is correct. See People v. Gallegos , 179 Colo. 211, 213, 499 P.2d 315, 316 (1972) ("No transcript of the evidence considered by the lower court was made a part of the record by appellant, and in the......
-
People v. Lee, 01CA2165.
...(1967), that a Fourth Amendment violation occurs only if a defendant has a justifiable expectation of privacy. See People v. Gallegos, 179 Colo. 211, 499 P.2d 315 (1972); People v. Palmer, 888 P.2d 348 Defendant does not dispute that his phone calls were from jail, and the trial court found......