United States v. Friedman, 300 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2002); United States v. Horr, 963 F.2d 1124, 1126 (8th Cir.1992); United States v. Rivera, 292 F.Supp.2d 838, 840-44 (E.D.Va.2003). But see United States v. Daniels, 902 F.2d 1238, 1245 (7th Cir.1990) (stating that to conclude that “a provision in the Code of Federal Regulations which says that inmates’ phone calls may be monitored” constitutes notice to prison inmates “is the kind of argument that makes lawyers figures of fun to the lay community, and although a respected sister court has accepted it, we place no weight on it.” (citation omitted)). An inmate’s decision to make a telephone call after receiving notice in one of the above methods has been construed as an implied consent to the monitoring. Rivera, 292 F.Supp.2d at 844 (<HOLDING>); see Coyazo, 1997-NMCA-029, ¶¶3, 16, 123 N.M.
holding in a murder case improper wire tapping of telephone calls between the victims wife and her lover recorded by the victim before his death required reversal for suppression holding inmates and those with whom they converse have no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in telephone conversations where inmates received a handbook alerting them that all telephone calls were recorded and were exposed to a document hanging in the common areas that notified prisoners that their calls might be monitored and recorded holding that the defendant plainly consented to the recording and monitoring of his telephone calls at both facilities because he used the telephone after receiving notice that his calls would be recorded andor monitored holding that local telephone calls are inadequate to satisfy jurisdictional requisite of interstate commerce holding that monitoring telephone calls is in the ordinary course of business where the employer has reason to suspect an employee of disclosing confidential information to business competitor