defendant’s statements made to himself in police interview room that were recorded by police); In re Joseph A., Cal.App.2d Dist., 30 Cal.App.3d 1993) (finding that police officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding communication with prisoner in public jail); U.S. v. Harrelson, 5th Cir., 754 F.2d 1153, 1169 (1985), reh'g denied, 5th Cir., 766 F.2d 186 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 908, 106 S.Ct. 277, 88 L.Ed.2d 241 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1034, 106 S.Ct. 599, 88 L.Ed.2d 578 (1985) (finding that, based on case law and legislative history, married couple had no reasonable expectation of privacy while conversing in jail since defendant testified he had personal knowledge of prison eavesdropping techniques); Commonwealth v. Henlen, 522 Pa. 514, 564 A.2d 905 (1989) (<HOLDING>). 24 . Fishman & McKenna, supra n. 21 § 7:28
holding police officer is a public official holding that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in statements made to companion while seated in police car holding that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone booth holding that police officer had no reasonable expectation of privacy while in his official capacity he interrogated suspect in jailhouse