Published on:

Does One Have an “Expectation of Privacy” in (an Oregon) Jail?

By
May 11, 2011, Oregon Court of Appeals opinion:

 

Defendant appeals from his conviction for private indecency, ORS 163.467, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the woman to whom he exposed himself did not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” because she was an inmate sitting in the hallway of the Old Jail in Washington County, and inmates have no reasonable expectation of privacy under either the state or federal constitutions….
Held: The question of whether the act proscribed by ORS 163.467 was committed in a “place where another person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” is a question of statutory interpretation, and, thus, defendant’s constitutional arguments were inapposite. The trial court correctly determined that the Old Jail was a “working area” under the plain meaning of that term. Affirmed.” [Link to full Media Release.  Link to full case.]