Background
The State of Louisiana sought supervisory review of a ruling by the 19th Judicial District Court in East Baton Rouge Parish granting David Catherine’s motion to suppress a video recording stored on an SD card.
Catherine asserted a legitimate privacy interest in the recording. At the suppression hearing, however, the record contained no evidence of his contract with the videographer or of any measures he took to protect the recording from disclosure.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit granted the State’s writ application and held that the record did not establish that Catherine had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the SD-card recording. The court explained that a reasonable expectation of privacy must have a source in property law or in understandings recognized and permitted by society, citing Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998).
The court also reasoned that a person generally lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily given to a third party because doing so assumes the risk of disclosure. It therefore ruled that the district court erred in granting suppression, denied Catherine’s motion to suppress, and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant seeking suppression must establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the material searched or obtained.
- The absence of evidence concerning ownership, contractual rights, or steps taken to preserve confidentiality can defeat a claimed privacy interest in a digital recording.
- Voluntarily entrusting information to a third party may eliminate a reasonable expectation of privacy by creating an assumed risk of disclosure.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established Fourth Amendment principles to a video recording held on removable digital media. It underscores that the mere fact that a recording concerns or belongs to a defendant does not, without supporting evidence, establish a constitutionally protected privacy interest.
For suppression litigation involving videographers, cloud services, contractors, or other custodians of digital material, the ruling highlights the importance of developing evidence about contractual control, confidentiality expectations, possession, and measures taken to restrict access.