Lawsuit Says Hudson County Jail Recorded Calls With Attorneys, Gave This Info To Prosecutors
from the a-snoop-too-far dept
Everyone’s aware (or should be) that all calls made from jail are monitored. Not all calls are recorded. There are exceptions, with the biggest being the one for calls made to attorneys representing jailed people.
Those are completely off-limits. These are privileged communications that cannot be monitored or recorded by the government. And yet, it seems to happen disturbingly frequently.
Part of the problem is that, in most cases, the monitoring of calls is automated and handled by third parties. The third parties make good money on every outgoing call. And if jail officials aren’t staying on top of things, everything gets collected. Once it’s collected, there’s really no reason to not take a listen to attorney-client calls (I mean, other than the rights violation). All you have to do then is just not get caught doing it.
For Securus and its incarceration customers, “getting caught” happened. A massive trove of hacked data included 14,000 recordings of calls between prisoners and their legal reps. Securus settled the inevitable class-action lawsuit five years later, covering $840,000 in legal fees and shelling out up to $20,000 to each affected inmate. It could easily afford to buy its way out of this since it has been known to charge upwards of $14 a minute for calls using its service.
The latest lawsuit to allege illegal recording of privileged communications has the potential to be another class-action lawsuit. It has been brought by a man currently serving time in a New Jersey correctional facility, who claims his attorney calls were not only recorded, but their content used against him by state prosecutors. (NJ.com was the first to report on this lawsuit, but while it can apparently erect a paywall, it apparently doesn’t have the capability to embed a copy of the lawsuit, much less link to it. So, Gothamist gets the leading link and the blockquotes.)
A man who was incarcerated in Hudson County, New Jersey, alleges jail officials and prosecutors there illegally listened to private conversations he had with his attorney while awaiting trial.
Yursil Kidwai says in a federal class-action lawsuit that jail officials secretly monitored phone conversations between him and his lawyer, which are privileged under New Jersey law, and then prosecutors used information shared in those calls to help build a sexual assault case against him.
The tech for recording calls en masse has existed for years. Plenty of players in the jail tech market have capitalized on this to extract exorbitant per-minute fees from a truly captive market. Correctional facilities not only benefit from the off-loading of this task to third parties, but they often directly benefit from the per-minute extortion racket by receiving a cut of every dollar generated by companies like Securus.
No third-party provider is being sued here. Just several facility officials and government prosecutors. As was stated above, listening in on privileged calls is super-easy. All that’s needed to get away with this is to not do anything stupid.
But everyone involved in this violation of rights screwed up, at least according to Yursil Kidwai’s lawsuit [PDF].
[Kidwai] learned of Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct only when Defendant HCPO [Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office] inadvertently produced in discovery copies of [HCPO Detective Ashley Rubel’s] memorandum to [Assistant Chief Hudson County Prosecutor Jane Weiner] and [HCPO Detective Sergeant Leslie Murphy] digesting the substance of Plaintiff’s attorney-client telephone calls.
At best, this could be charitably described as “sloppy.” This opens up the jail and the prosecutor’s office to all sorts of speculation, if not actionable claims. The inmate also claims other inmates have experienced the same sort of forbidden snooping, although the other person named was not so fortunate as to have been the beneficiary of an unforced error.
Since this is a proposed class-action suit, Kidwai is not seeking suppression of this evidence or a reversal of his conviction. (Reports suggest the case against Kidwai was so strong prosecutors definitely didn’t need to use anything obtained illegally, which makes you wonder why they chose to do so.) Instead, he’s seeking a court order blocking the HCPO and correctional facility from doing something they’re already not allowed to do. He’s also seeking unspecified monetary damages, but if it’s true this conviction wasn’t predicated on illegal monitoring of calls, it seems unlikely he’ll be able to demonstrate any monetary loss from these illegal actions.
Without a doubt, this sort of thing is common. What’s uncommon is the government getting caught doing it. Discovery — should the case get to that point — might prove to be very interesting.
Filed Under: attorney client privilege, hudson county, jail phone calls, new jersey, phone calls, prison phone calls, yursil kidwai
Comments on “Lawsuit Says Hudson County Jail Recorded Calls With Attorneys, Gave This Info To Prosecutors”
Phone bills
Dont you hate the ones that think Across the street is Long distance?(it used to be that bad)
And the only reason that the cost is so high is to KEEP those inside FROM USING THE PHONE for more then a few minutes.
And none of criminals violating the law end up in jail.
For fucks sake.
Judge, procecutor, cops. This is why people don’t feel sad when you get beat or killed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Yursil Kidwai–a very evil person who was sentenced to many years behind bars for committing horrific sexual assault…that’s the type of irredeemable predator that this site advocates for.
Re:
The law says the calls with his attorney are privileged. For what reason should the law be ignored only and specifically because he was convicted of any kind of crime?
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
You are one of those stupid fuckers who doesn’t understand that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You so fucking stupid you don’t even understand how past, present and future works.
Re: Re:
To be fair, the guy in this story was found guilty (“Kidwai is not seeking suppression of this evidence or a reversal of his conviction”). But his being a convict doesn’t, and shouldn’t, deprive him of all his civil rights.
Re: Re: Re:
I think the gist of AC’s comment is this:
And when someone is awaiting a trial, they are still presumed innocent for that specific case regardless if they happen to be incarcerated or not.
Re: Re: Re:2
Fair point.
Re:
Reading comprehension is a thing. It’s not only roughly half the whole point of a grade-school education, it’s a vital skill for anyone desiring to communicate on any public forum — I highly recommend you learn* it.
*) Note: remedial instruction/night-school classes are available for free in virtually any public school system, and many other free, “basic literacy for adults” programs as well.
Reminder to the bootlickers: Yes, even rapists have civil rights—and when theirs are disrespected without consequence, yours will be next on the chopping block.
Re:
William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons: A Play in Two Acts
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
And much like you asslicker, they also have the right to be stupid.
In the article I saw no mention of how or if the prison was notified that the phone call was an attorney client phone call.
Obviously, attorney client privilege is a mainstay of the Justice System but what happens when the client is the one who causes the breach? Since most phone calls from prison are not to attorneys, they are monitored and recorded so there must be a mechanism to let the prison know which calls are to attorneys and private. In California a form must be submitted and signed before an attorney client phone call is authorized to prevent it from being monitored. I’m not sure what the mechanism in New Jersey is but if either party, the attorney or the client hasn’t notified the prison of an attorney client phone call, chances are it will be monitored and recorded.
Re: Re:
lmfao you don’t know how prisons work, do you?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
The longest I spent in jail was 24 hours. You’re probably more experienced. Tell me how you notify the prison that you are making a private attorney client call.
Re: Re: Re:2
Does one need to be an incarcerated criminal in order to understand how the prison system works?
If so, why? Are the prisons not being run as their policy/procedures say they should be? Maybe we do not enforce our laws equally? Perhaps the justice system is full of shit?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
The policy of all prisons is to monitor all inmates 24/7. The only time that is suspended is client/attorney communication. There is a procedure for client/attorney communication. Was it followed? That’s the question.
Re: Re: Re:4
That question is ultimately irrelevant. The prosecutors had to have known that they were listening to recordings of a defendant talking with his attorney—at which point they should’ve stopped listening and definitely shouldn’t have shared any information they gleaned from those recordings with anyone who hadn’t already heard the recordings. Trying to excuse that behavior by blaming the prison or the call-monitoring company won’t work here because neither of those entities forced the prosecutors to share the information they discovered and thus violate the attorney-client privilege.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m not blaming the monitors or the prison. They did exactly what they were supposed to do–monitor a phone call not on a secure attorney/client line and then relay that information to the prison. That information made its way to the detectives and the prosecutors. I’m blaming whoever screwed up even if it was Mr. Kidwai or his attorney. If it was Mr. Kidwai, he doesn’t get to sue and win. It would be like crossing over the white line into head on traffic and then suing the other drivers for the accident.
The prosecutors are required to share their discovery evidence with the DEFENSE attorney (you know the guy Mr. Kidwai was overheard talking to so he already knew the information). This may have been the moment that the prosecutors first became aware that the evidence was gleamed from a conversation between Mr. Kidwai and his attorney, on an unsecure line.
Depending on the context of the conversation they might not have had any idea who Mr. Kidwai was talking to. An example–
Mr. Kidwai, “Hey Bill, they say they have my DNA, but I was wearing a condom at the time. So, they can’t prove it and I’m innocent, right? ”
Attorney, “Not necessarily. Hey I got to go. We’ll talk later”.
Click
The case is not a slam dunk and may not be proof of any malfeasance even if Tim wants it to be.
Re: Re: Re:6
Because of course you’d blame the victim if it meant the cops wouldn’t look bad.
Kidwai and his attorney reasonably believed that the content of their phone calls, even if they were being monitored, wouldn’t be subject to investigation precisely because the content was protected by attorney-client privilege. The cops and the prosecutors fucked up by violating that privilege. If Kidwai or his attorney had a lapse in judgment in re: their calls being monitored, that’s bad—but it shouldn’t (and doesn’t) excuse the prosecutors from their actions.
That’s what LUDs are for. One look at the number Kidwai called would’ve told the prosecutors that Kidwai was talking to an attorney. That alone should’ve stopped prosecutors from going any further with the info they got. I get that you want cops and prosecutors to win against anyone accused of a crime—even (and maybe especially) if the accused is innocent—but licking boot has apparently killed enough of your brain cells for you to not realize that cops and prosecutors make mistakes. They should be held accountable for those mistakes.
Really, though, which one are you more upset about: the cops and prosecutors fucking up, or the person whose rights were violated trying to hold those cops and prosecutors accountable for their fuck-up?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Criminal scum like Kidwai would be lucky to have even faux lawyers in a just society.
It’s disgusting how you advocate for irredeemable monsters, autist!
Re: Re: Re:8
In a just society, people like Kidwai would…
…regardless of the crimes he was convicted of committing.
Do you want me to condemn his crimes? Easy peasy: The convicted rapist at the center of this story did a heinous thing and he absolutely deserves to sit in jail for it. But if you’re asking me to demand that the government treat him as less of a person than you or I only and specifically because of his status as a convicted sex offender? Call me names, call him names, call yourself God—I don’t give a fuck what you do because it won’t get me to agree with your fascist bullshit.
The easiest thing society could do is violate the civil rights of people suspected of being criminals by jailing/executing them without trials. But giving that power to those in charge of society would allow those people to exterminate “undesirables”, even if their only crime is “existing in a way the powers that be don’t like”. Upholding the civil rights of the worst people in society (e.g., rapists, murderers, Nazis, Five Nights at Freddy’s fans) is how we protect the marginalized (e.g., queer people, racial and religious minorities, neurodivergent people) from receiving the same treatment as the maligned. To believe the maligned deserve no rights is to believe in fascism; I can’t and won’t believe in that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
All phone calls to the Hudson County jail are handled by a company called GTL and you have to have an account to talk to an inmate. When you sign up, this is on their website.
Things you need to understand about Inmate Phone Calling
• Phones are the only way for an inmate to hear your voice and temporarily ‘escape’ the loneliness of incarceration, so use your time well. Arguing about anything will leave you both feeling empty and guilty, so avoid it at all costs.
• All phone conversations are recorded. Whatever either of you say can and will be used against your inmate in court.
• Never discuss their pending criminal case! Even if you and your inmate believe that your ‘coded’ coversation will not be understood, or if you speak in another language thinking the jail staff will not understand, don’t do it. The staff that monitors your recorded calls has heard it all… you are not fooling them… and you may find your conversation being used as evidence in their case… or even yours!
• Also, be warned that some phone providers are collecting voice prints for a database which law enforcement agencies are building.
Hudson County Adult Correctional Center, NJ Inmate Phone (jailexchange.com)
https://www.jailexchange.com/city-and-county-jails/new-jersey/hudson-county/hudson-county-adult-correctional-center/inmate-phone-contact
The mechanism for determining an attorney /client communication is—
Apparently, the only way to talk to your attorney is either through a visitation or a video call which have to be scheduled ahead of time. To answer your next question, no they are not monitored. Any and all attorneys would know this.
Attorney Visit – Hudson County (hcnj.us)
https://www.hcnj.us/corrections/attorney-visit/
If you want to contend that GTL listened in on a video call or somehow monitored a visitation, that is another issue.
Re: Re: Re:4
You did not answer the question.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: I should have added this.
I know there are State prisons and county jails, and they all differ. Here is what to expect when you get locked up in LA county.
Is My Call from Jail to My Attorney Really Private? :: Los Angeles, County Crime Defense Lawyers Greg Hill & Associates (greghillassociates.com)
https://www.greghillassociates.com/is-my-call-from-jail-to-my-attorney-really-private.html
Re: Re:
This is a classic argument from ignorance. Your lack of information isn’t evidence. Maybe don’t draw conclusions when you admit you don’t have enough information to do so. And then insulting others on the basis of your admitted ignorance is even more silly. If you’ve got a citation from somewhere showing that it’s the client’s fault, provide it. Otherwise Hitchens has a razor for you to shave with.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Since most of the calls from prisons are not to attorneys and are therefore monitored, there must be a method for inmates to speak privately with their attorneys. Those methods vary from state to state and even county to county. Were those methods followed? Tim wrote a whole article condemning the defendants of violating Mr. Kidwai’s rights, without disclosing that fact. Does Tim need a shave?
Re: Re: Re:2
Okay, you’ve got a theory. The next step is to investigate. What is the method?
Good question! What did you find out when you did research before drawing a conclusion in this particular case?
Wait, which fact? The fact that you’ve concluded something without evidence?
See, this is where we can tell you either didn’t read or didn’t understand the article and the case.
Even if an attorney-client conversation were recorded because a suspect failed to notify the appropriate party not to record it, it would still be unconstitutional to use that recording against them, regardless of how the recording came to exist. And further, it would continue to be unconstitutional for a prison official to convey that recording to a prosecutor, who is not a party to the conversation nor constitutionally entitled to its contents.
You’re still wrong even if you think you’re right about a point you’ve assumed.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, Tim didn’t explain what notified the prison or the prosecutors that they were overhearing a client attorney conversation.
GTL recorded the call because they record all calls.
GTL gave it to the detective.
The detective gave it to the prosecutor.
The prosecutor gave it to the defense attorney.
If you want a private attorney client conversation, you must either schedule a video conversation or an actual visitation. It is the attorney’s responsibility to know that.
Attorney Visit – Hudson County (hcnj.us)
https://www.hcnj.us/corrections/attorney-visit/
It doesn’t say that the conversation was used against Mr. Kidwai in court or even if the conversation made it to court.
Re: Re: Re:4
So you’re saying you don’t know, therefore you drew a conclusion based on insufficient knowledge.
Some calls are still subject to constitutional protections by their very nature.
These are the unconstitutional acts being asserted in the case.
[citation needed] And by citation, I’m asking for the caselaw or the legislation, not a third party website or corrections department policy notification.
That page covers how an attorney visits a client or schedules a video visitation. It’s neither a law that those are the only two possibilities nor is the department of corrections able to make up a policy that violates the constitutional rights of the accused.
That doesn’t affect the unconstitutionality of the act. Again, you’re wrong regardless of how you argue it must be okay.
Re: Re: Re:5
No. I checked for myself, that is how I found out that GTL was responsible for monitoring calls to inmates.
Those calls were to be made through an unmonitored, scheduled video call involving coordination between the prison and the attorney.
Yes, courts are where you assert things.
Since I’m not a lawyer and I’m assuming you’re not a lawyer how about we let the courts decide? Even as bias as Tim is, he didn’t issue a verdict, he merely said it “has the potential to be another class-action lawsuit.” Even though the last class action lawsuit involved a data leak and this one (so far) only involves one man.
So you are questioning whether GTL procedures violate the Constitution, not whether they were followed. That is a different case, but you would think that lawyers using GTL 24/7 for years would have complained earlier.
I’m not arguing that listening in on an attorney client phone call is ok, I’m wondering how it happened.
If the attorney screwed up, then that is on him.
If Mr. Kidwai screwed up, then that is on him.
If GTL screwed up, then that is on them.
If the detective screwed up, then that is on him or her.
If the prosecutors screwed up, then that is on them.
Whoever screwed up or whatever malfeasance there was determines the solution and the penalties. Not all murders are murder. Let’s let the evidence and the judge determine that.
Re: Re: Re:6
You checked after you made the assumption. Also, what you discovered didn’t mean what you think it means.
No, you don’t understand. Calls between an attorney and client are private by their nature. The protected nature of the call is determined by the participants, not by the method or medium.
And that’s where they’re being asserted.
You’re making claims of fact. I’m saying you need to provide evidence or else your claims can be dismissed promptly and what non-existent respect we have for your opinion can continue its negative vector.
I can provide you with caselaw. I can provide you with law citations. You can provide me with bullshit.
I’m not questioning anything. If GTL as an agent of the corrections department provided attorney-client privileged communications to law enforcement, then law enforcement has violated constitutional rights.
You assume they haven’t.
You’re wondering while also asserting statements of fact that you’ve admitted you have no basis to claim. And then as a paltry attempt to shore up weak arguments, you’ve cited websites that don’t affect the issue at hand.
That’s still not true. If the attorney or client messed up somehow, the content of the calls would still be privileged. Once an agent of the government/law enforcement became aware that a recording was of a privileged phone call, they would be required to stop listening and destroy the recording or at least remove their access to it and notify appropriate parties that constitutionally-protected recordings were being made.
You didn’t let the evidence and the judge determine anything when you made assertions of fact without sufficient information.
Re: Re: Re:7 I'll play
What did I assume?
Since lawyers are not allowed to contact their clients except through a video call or a visitation, then how did the phone call get recorded? Sounds like someone screwed up or cheated. Which is it?
That claim would be?
Ok, lets see it.
I know you are not questioning anything, I am. You must have a GTL account to contact an inmate over the phone and attorneys are only allowed to contact their clients through scheduled video calls or visitation. So how did that phone call get monitored? Did the attorney lie about being an attorney so he could talk to his client on the phone? Did the government eavesdrop on a video call? Should someone be disbarred, fired, arrested, or sued?
I don’t want to assume anything. Please have one of your clerks track down similar cases against GTL and report back.
You have me so rattled. What facts have I presented that I have no basis to claim?
Do you mean the websites with instructions on how to contact inmates? Or the part warning everyone that their phone calls will be monitored?
And if that moment didn’t occur until the prosecutor provided the defense attorney with the discovery evidence?
Am I going to jail? I certainly didn’t mean to assert facts. I thought I was looking for information. Do you have any information? Have you tried many cases like this before?
Re: Re: Re:8
“Since most of the calls from prisons are not to attorneys and are therefore monitored, there must be a method for inmates to speak privately with their attorneys. Those methods vary from state to state and even county to county. Were those methods followed? Tim wrote a whole article condemning the defendants of violating Mr. Kidwai’s rights, without disclosing that fact.”
You assumed that it must have been the defendant’s mistake or the attorney’s mistake. You assumed it’s the responsibility of the attorney or the client to inform the prison that they’re speaking to each other in a privileged conversation. You assumed that all the law enforcement and agents of the government were doing their job and didn’t make mistakes, despite you admitting you didn’t know what the procedure was or if it was followed.
[citation needed]
Again, that page you linked to is about how to have a video or in person visit. It is not a legal guide to what methods of communication are legally available between an attorney and client.
These are questions based on assumptions you don’t have enough information to make.
You’ve made multiple claims of fact. You continue to pretend like informational sources are legislative and caselaw dictates of constitutional rights.
https://www.rflawgroup.com/judge-orders-new-trial-in-sweepstakes-case-because-prosecutors-ordered-defendant-who-pleaded-guilty-to-spy-on-his-co-defendants/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1921&context=sulr
I can also provide a lmgtfy link if you need one.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
And what have you discovered in your research about these questions?
You made the claim that someone would have complained by now. It’s up to you to prove the claim.
Every statement of fact you’ve made so far. You’ve portrayed agency practices as matters of legal fact.
I mean the websites that describe a practice of the department of corrections, not the constitutional rights of defendants.
You’re saying a prosecutor wouldn’t be aware of attorney-client privilege until the defense attorney pointed out a constitutional right belonging to all defendants?
Only if bullshit were a crime.
“Apparently if you want a private attorney client conversation, you must either schedule a video conversation or an actual visitation. It is the attorney’s responsibility to know that.”
You didn’t mean to say that? You should see if there’s a second keyboard plugged into your computer. Someone else is typing stuff that makes you look like a lazy, disingenuous boot-licking troll in the comments.
When I look for information, I don’t usually make unverified assertions. Maybe give that a try.
Re: Re:
Irrelevant. The moment prosecutors figured out the recording was a call between a lawyer and a client is the moment prosecutors should’ve stopped listening. Instead, they’ve given a slam-dunk case to a convicted rapist over a violation of his civil rights that never needed to happen.
Do you expect a defendant to talk to their lawyers outside of in-person meetings via telepathy? A defendant shouldn’t have the responsibility of securing their communications in jail/prison. The burden of keeping the attorney/client privilege intact despite the client having their communications monitored should lie with everyone else involved with facilitating those communications. The prosecutors should’ve never gotten a recording of those calls; having gotten them anyway, they should’ve never talked about the content of those calls with anyone. This lawsuit is all but a slam dunk for the plaintiff, and it’s all because some idiot prosecutors decided that violating the civil rights of a rapist was an act with which they could live.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Pfft. It’s the autistic guy defending rapists, as if they’re not evil, sub-human scum who should be put to death. No surprise.
Re: Re: Re:2
We must respect and defend the rights of the worst among us; in doing so, we respect and defend those same rights for everyone else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, we don’t. Rights only for the people I like/approve of, and for me! (as long as I can stay on the right side of power)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Thank you for acknowledging the anal vore specialists among us.
We knew you’d always come around to see things from our perspective.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
You can’t hide the truth forever Hyman.
We are present and we WILL be acknowledged.
Anyone else who disagrees is a homophobe and WILL be reeducated.
Re: Re: Re:5
Seriously, you give Hyman way too much credit.
Re: Re: Re:6
Hyman’s always been full of himself.
Re: Re: Re:2
…projection, thy name is BDAC.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Prosecutors use the evidence the detectives provide. If Mr. Kidwai used the wrong phone or didn’t notify the prison that he was making a phone call to his attorney, his call was going to be recorded. If the person monitoring the call hears something about a prison break, smuggling weapons and drugs in, or information about a crime, it is their job to report it. The person monitoring it may not even know who the inmate is talking to.
I expect the government to provide a means for inmates to talk privately with their attorneys and for the inmates to use it. If that system was breached, then it is on government. If it wasn’t used, then it is on the inmate.
Like all arguments, lets hear the other side before deciding something is a “slam dunk” or even valid.
Re: Re: Re:2
Prosecutors are lucky that they had other evidence besides these phone calls to use at trial. Any evidence arising from those calls would be inadmissible in court due to the violation of attorney-client privilege—a violation for which those prosecutors would be legally liable, just as they are now.
And that’s why this lawsuit was filed.
The “other side” in this lawsuit shared with other people information gathered by listening to a recording of a defendant talking with his lawyer. The prosecutors can come up with any number of excuses for that behavior; one of them might even stick. But the actions alleged in the lawsuit—and the evidence offered as proof of those actions—have put the prosecutors at a disadvantage.
Yes, I want to hear the “other side” respond. But I want to hear them accept responsibility for their actions and promise proper restitution to the guy whose rights they violated.
Re: Re: Re:2
“lets hear the other side”
I am interested in the other side to this other side you refer to, and the other side to that other side.
Is there really other sides to anything? Everyone has a different and unique “side” – no?
I think “sides” is stupid.
Re: Re: Re:3
When the facts and the law are on one side, davec’s always on the opposite side.
'Damning'... 'Massively embarassing'... 'evidence of widespread corruption'...
What’s uncommon is the government getting caught doing it. Discovery — should the case get to that point — might prove to be very interesting.
‘Interesting’ is not quite the word I’d use there but I nonetheless agree, which is why I am absolutely sure that the government will be doing everything possible to settle the case before it gets to that point and before any precedent can be set that would bar them from continuing such behavior.
Re:
🙁
So which loophole will they use to QI this away this time?
Oh I know… we didn’t know we couldn’t listen on a phone with a black handset.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Did Mr. Kidwai notify the prison that he was calling his attorney?
Re: Re:
That doesn’t matter since the case is in New Jersey where it’s illegal to monitor or record client-attorney privileged communication regardless of the setting. Handing such recordings over to a prosecutor is even worse.
Any LEO with a smidgen of professionalism would have stop listening on a recording when it became clear it was a client-attorney conversation.
But since you think professionalism is a quality that LEO’s shouldn’t have we know you’ll defend unprofessional behavior every time it’s brought to light.
Re: Re: Re:
Kinda funny how davec keeps pounding the law up until it makes him look like the two-faced, ignorant, pasty old boomer he is, huh?
Re: Re:
Did Mr. Kidwai notify the prison that he was calling his attorney?
Was it his responsibility, or was it on the eavesdroppers on the call?
Since you know so much about ‘procedures’ and ‘training’ and all…or are you arguing from a position of ignorance again?
Re: Re: Re:
Apparently if you want a private attorney client conversation, you must either schedule a video conversation or an actual visitation. It is the attorney’s responsibility to know that.
Attorney Visit – Hudson County (hcnj.us)
https://www.hcnj.us/corrections/attorney-visit/
Re: Re:
He doesn’t have to you complete moron.
Re:
Defense attorney: We didn’t know we couldn’t listen on a phone with a black handset.
Judge: There was a case that covered that last year.
Defense attorney: On a tuesday?
Judge: Last week, in this very court no less.
Defense attorney: Starting at exactly 3:42 pm?
Judge: Give me a minute… Looks like that exact scenario hasn’t yet come up so QI granted!
Securus and the jail need at minimum to be fined an amount equal to 10x the potential profits they made selling the calls multiplied by the number of years Securus had their contract.
In this way, they don’t profit from illegal activity AND send a warning to other government contractors that their profits WILL be taken away.
Then give the guy who’s call was recorded AND the attorney $5 million each. That encourages OTHER inmates and legal firms to get involved and start searching for call violations.
Full list of people surprised by this development:
[list ends]
You sound like Stephen. Before we get into an encyclopedic back and forth, why don’t you bottom line it for me.
Or
It is the government’s fault—no questions asked.
Don’t let me put words in your mouth but let’s get to the condensed view.
You look lost, can I help you out?
Which way did you come in?