Teat v. State, CR-92-1884
Decision Date | 30 December 1993 |
Docket Number | CR-92-1884 |
Citation | 636 So.2d 697 |
Parties | Tommy TEAT v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tommy Teat, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Harry Lyles and Andrew Redd, Alabama Dept. of Corrections, Montgomery, for appellee.
The appellant, Tommy Teat, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant was disciplined for attempting to escape, a violation of a prison disciplinary rule. Officer Barbara Claybrook testified at the disciplinary hearing that while monitoring a telephone conversation she overheard the appellant discussing escape plans with a "free-world person."
The appellant appealed this disciplinary ruling to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, arguing that there was insufficient evidence from which to find that he had attempted to escape, and thus, insufficient evidence from which to find that he had violated a disciplinary rule. On May 15, 1992, the Honorable Elizabeth Campbell, Magistrate for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied the writ, stating that there was sufficient evidence to find that the appellant had attempted to escape.
The appellant then appealed the same disciplinary ruling to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. That court denied the petition, and the appellant appeals to this court. He contends that his constitutional right to privacy was violated when his telephone call was monitored without his knowledge. The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that this appeal should be dismissed on res judicata grounds because, it argues, the appellant could have raised this issue in his appeal to the federal district court.
Arnold v. State, 55 Ala.App. 418, 316 So.2d 346, 348 (1975). Thus the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable in this case.
As stated above, the appellant contends that his reasonable expectation of privacy was violated when his telephone conversation was monitored without his knowledge. As the United States Supreme Court stated in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979):
441 U.S. at 546, 99 S.Ct. at 1877-78.
However, prisoners do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Washington v. Meachum
...of jailhouse telephone on grounds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in jailhouse conversation); Teat v. State, 636 So.2d 697, 699 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) ("there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone conversations of inmates at penal institutions"); State v. ......
-
Keaton v. State
...conversation of inmates at penal institutions.'" Mitchell v. State, 84 So.3d 968, 1011 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (quoting Teat v. State, 636 So.2d 697, 699 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)). Moreover, we note that the recording of each jail call included an audio warning that the calls were being recorded and......
-
Garzarek v. State
...the propriety of recording his telephone conversation because, he argues, doing so undermines his right to counsel. In Teat v. State, 636 So.2d 697 (Ala.Crim.App.1993), this Court held that, although a prisoner does not necessarily give up all constitutional rights during his or her incarce......
-
Billups v. State
...no reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone conversations engaged in by the prisoner at a penal institution. Teat v. State, 636 So.2d 697 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). As this Court noted in Teat: “As the United States Supreme Court stated in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 6......