106 Cal.Rptr. 729, 732 (1973) (recognizing that while an uncle and nephew had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their oral communications which took place in an interrogation room located in police station, conversations between individuals who occupy privileged relationships, i.e., husband and wife, are exempted from the general rale that individuals have no expectation of privacy in oral communications which take place within a police station); People v. Blair, Cal.App. 4th Dist., 2 Cal.App.3d 249, 82 Cal.Rptr. 673, 676-77 (1969) (finding that no expectation of privacy existed in conversations between defendant and his brother when defendant was told twice that police interview room was "bugged”). 23 . Lanza v. New York, 370 U.S. 139, 143, 82 S.Ct. 1218, 8 L.Ed.2d 384 (1962) (<HOLDING>); Angel v. Williams, 8th Cir., 12 F.3d 786, 790
holding that no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in a prison visitor room where conversations took place between brothers and were surreptitiously recorded by state officials holding that a nonprisoner had no reasonable expectation of privacy when speaking to a prisoner on the telephone because as a frequent visitor to the prison she was well aware of the strict security measures in place and that the code of federal regulations puts the public on notice that prison officials are authorized to monitor prisoners telephone calls holding that a visitor to a hotel room for purposes of distributing drugs failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room holding that no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in jailhouse conversations held between defendant and alleged accomplice when defendant was or should have been aware of monitoring system since speaker was visible on cell room wall holding that prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy in their prison cells