United States v. Paxton, 848 F.3d 803

Five defendants were arrested while attempting a fictitious "stash house" robbery and placed, handcuffed, into a marked Chicago police transport van with three metal-divided compartments.
Two concealed recording devices (audio and audiovisual) in the rear detainee compartment captured detainees’ quiet conversations while being driven to an ATF field office; no Miranda warnings were given before transport.
At least one detainee (Berry) remarked that the van was “probably bugged” during the ride; officers later interviewed defendants individually after giving Miranda warnings.
The district court suppressed statements made before Berry’s remark, concluding the detainees initially had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the enclosed rear compartment but lost it after Berry’s warning.
The government appealed the suppression; defendant Webster cross‑appealed the district court’s finding that Berry’s comment terminated his subjective expectation of privacy.
The Seventh Circuit reversed the suppression, holding detainees lack an objectively reasonable expectation of conversational privacy in a marked police transport van, and dismissed Webster’s cross‑appeal as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether detainees have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations inside a marked police transport van	Gov: No reasonable expectation in any marked police vehicle; recording lawful without warrant or consent	Defs: Enclosed rear compartment is like a squadrol; detainees reasonably expect privacy when speaking quietly	Held: No objectively reasonable expectation; recording did not violate Fourth Amendment or Title III; reversal of suppression
Whether a co‑defendant’s remark that the van was “probably bugged” terminated Webster’s subjective expectation of privacy	Gov: N/A on this point in appeal (focused on objective issue)	Webster: Argued his subjective expectation persisted despite Berry’s remark	Held: Court did not decide because objective‑reasonableness ruling made the issue moot; Webster’s cross‑appeal dismissed

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (recognition of reasonable expectation of privacy test for electronic eavesdropping)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (procedural warnings required for custodial interrogation)
United States v. Webster, 775 F.3d 897 (7th Cir.) (squad‑car conversations not protected; left open other vehicle types)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (no reasonable expectation of privacy in prison cell)
United States v. McKinnon, 985 F.2d 525 (11th Cir.) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in patrol car)
United States v. Clark, 22 F.3d 799 (8th Cir.) (patrol car is officer workplace and mobile jail; no privacy)
United States v. Turner, 209 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir.) (visible electronics in patrol car negate privacy expectation)