Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Any recording of a lawyer's conversation with a client is wrong. The constitution protects these as confidential and private. This is one of our basic rights under innocent until proven guilty and the 5th ammendment right to not incriminate yourself. The recording of these violate the civil rights of persons charged but not yet through the judicial system. Once convicted unless under appeal the incarcerated have no right to expect privacy during any conversation. All lawyers should request a private room to talk to clients with out having to use phones at all the inmate can be cuffed to a conference table and the room under observation from outside to ensure no illegal activities take place. When will law enforcement start obeying the law??? The Constitution is there to protect all citizens from govt. abuse and in clear and plain language specifically prohibits such activities..
WE NEED TO ENSURE ALL RIGHTS GRANTED US ARE KEPT IN FULL. IMO we need to review all laws passed to see if they fall with-in the original authority granted govt. as specified in the constitution. Going back to the first law that restricts any freedom or right in any shape or form. The federal govt has way over-stepped it's powers and needs to be put back in it's proper place with all rights returned to the states and the people.
This system s about making money off a captive audience.
I find it laughable that the Advocate (and onestar) quote:
"Texas Government Code 495.025, which says: "The (prison) shall ensure that no confidential attorney-client communication is monitored or recorded by the department or any person acting on the department's behalf ... ""
When in fact it reads: § 495.025. Certain Commissary Contracts; Taste Tests
(a) For the purchase of commissary food goods, the department may conduct a taste test as consideration for a bid award only if, to conduct the test, the department contracts with a private marketing vendor, a university, or another independent organization that is experienced in food product evaluation and taste tests.
(b) In awarding a bid for commissary food goods for which a taste test is conducted, the department may use the taste test results as not more than 30 percent of the criteria used for the bid award.
(c) A contract into which the department enters under Subsection (a) must require the vendor, university, or other organization, at the expense of the vendor, university, or organization, to annually re-conduct the taste test to ensure that the product meets the original specifications of the request for proposal that resulted in the department entering a contract for the tested product.
Pretty sloppy fact-checking, Advocate.
As to the actual code, three things to keep in mind:
1) It only applies to convicted persons, not an inmate.
2) It only applies to penitentiaries, not jails such as VCSO.
3) It's never been used as evidence.
"Copeland stopped the tape, alerted jailers, a judge, defense attorneys and prosecutors, the sheriff said."
At least Lt. Tom Copeland realized what he was hearing would never see the light of day in a courtroom, and notified all interested party s.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
My only comment on this story is, thank you Victoria Advocate, for reporting the news.
While I usually do not particularly care about what defense lawyers want/think/say/believe, I do feel that conversations between client and attorney should be priviledged and not subject to being recorded in any manner without permission. It's simply the fair way to handle it, regardless of which "side" you are on.
Sorry O'Connor, Tyler and other cop types but "Texas Government Code 495.025, which says: "The (prison) shall ensure that no confidential attorney-client communication is monitored or recorded by the department or any person acting on the department's behalf ... "
What part of "no confidential attorney-client communication is moniotred or recorded..."don't you understand.
I challenge O'Connor ,Tyler and othe cop types to come up with one single source for authority to monitor or record attorney-client communications, especially for defendants who are not even convicted