State v. Wood, 532 P.3d 997

Eugene Wood, charged with kidnapping and assault, repeatedly called his wife from the Salt Lake County Jail in violation of a pretrial protective order; the jail recorded the calls and the State sought to use them as evidence and to bring additional charges.
The jail contracts with Inmate Calling Solutions (ICS); ICS records and stores all inmate calls except attorney calls, and staff monitor calls for security and suspected crimes.
Inmates were notified of monitoring/recording via an intake handbook, placards by phones, and an automated recorded message at the start of each call.
The deputy district attorney requested the recordings via a GRAMA request and received them; Wood moved to suppress, arguing the recordings violated Utah’s Interception of Communications Act.
The district court denied suppression, finding Wood impliedly consented and that the law-enforcement exception also applied; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed on the consent ground and rejected Wood’s separate Chapter 23b warrant/suppression argument.

Issue	Wood's Argument	State/Jail's Argument	Held
Whether jail recordings violated Utah’s Interception Act (i.e., whether consent exception applies)	Notices were insufficient and incarceration/coercion vitiate voluntary consent	Multiple, specific notices were given; using the phones despite notice implies consent	Held: Implied consent exists; interception lawful under consent exception
Whether law-enforcement exception to the Act applied	Contested; Wood argued exception didn’t apply	State argued law-enforcement exception also justified recordings	Court did not decide this issue because consent dispositive
Whether Utah Code ch. 23b required a warrant to obtain recordings from ICS and permitted suppression	Chapter 23b required a warrant and thus suppression of recordings	Chapter 23b does not provide suppression as a remedy and likely does not apply to wire communications	Held: Chapter 23b does not supply suppression remedy and does not change outcome; argument rejected

United States v. Verdin-Garcia, 516 F.3d 884 (10th Cir.) (upholding implied consent where inmates received handbook, signage, and recorded call warning)
United States v. Feekes, 879 F.2d 1562 (7th Cir.) (expressing skepticism about voluntariness of consent by prisoners)
United States v. Amen, 831 F.2d 373 (2d Cir.) (noting explicit notice language that use of phones constitutes consent)
United States v. Faulkner, 439 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.) (explaining prisoners have reduced expectations of privacy and that use of monitored phones implies consent)
United States v. Van Poyck, 77 F.3d 285 (9th Cir.) (consent may be implied from surrounding circumstances and notice)
United States v. Footman, 215 F.3d 145 (1st Cir.) (court analysis supporting implied consent in prison-phone recordings)