## Facts

- Jay E. Lentz awaited retrial on a federal charge of kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
- While housed at Northern Neck Regional Jail, Lentz placed three telephone calls (Jan. 10, 2005) to his attorney, Frank Salvato, using the jail’s standard inmate phone system.
- The system automatically recorded outgoing calls and played a prerecorded warning at the start of each call that the conversation was recorded and could be monitored.
- Lentz had also signed written jail acknowledgments stating outgoing calls were subject to recording and monitoring; the jail did not provide an unrecorded attorney-call line.
- The government obtained the recordings after receiving information from another inmate about an alleged plan by Lentz to arrange killings of prosecution witnesses and possibly prosecutors.
- In the recorded calls, Lentz discussed matters the government construed as probing or facilitating murder-for-hire, including references to a purported killer and requests suggesting use of an alias and covert discussion.
- Salvato indicated awareness that inmate calls were recorded, including statements to that effect during the calls.
- Lentz moved to suppress the recordings, asserting attorney-client privilege and a Sixth Amendment violation.

## Issues

1. Whether attorney-client privilege protected recorded jail telephone calls between Lentz and his counsel when Lentz knew the calls were recorded and potentially monitored.
2. Whether the government’s acquisition and intended use of those recordings violated Lentz’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to suppress.
- The court held the calls were not protected by attorney-client privilege because Lentz lacked a reasonable expectation of confidentiality given repeated recording warnings and written acknowledgments.
- The court held there was no Sixth Amendment violation because the recordings resulted from a routine jail policy, not a purposeful governmental intrusion into defense strategy, and no prejudice to trial preparation was shown.

## Legal Principles

- Attorney-client privilege attaches only to communications made in confidence; a reasonable expectation of confidentiality is required.
- A defendant who knowingly communicates with counsel on a recorded jail line, after explicit warnings, generally forfeits the confidentiality necessary for privilege.
- The government’s use of attorney-client communications implicates the Sixth Amendment chiefly where the state purposefully intrudes into the attorney-client relationship to obtain defense strategy and thereby causes prejudice.
- Passive acquisition and use of recordings generated by a neutral, generally applicable jail recording practice does not alone establish unconstitutional interference with counsel.

## Conclusion

The court admitted the recorded jail calls, finding that Lentz knowingly used a recorded phone system and therefore lacked the confidentiality required for attorney-client privilege, and that the government’s receipt and use of the recordings did not amount to purposeful interference with counsel or result in Sixth Amendment prejudice.


United States v. Lentz, 419 F. Supp. 2d 820 (E.D. Va. 2005)