Thе issues on this appeal arise from the monitoring of a jail inmate’s phone call. On March 30, 1991, Lisa L. Fox, an inmate of the Story County Jail, placed a phone call to’ a friend. The call was monitored by a deputy sheriff. As a result of statements made by- Fox during the phone call, the jаil staff searched her cell and found a marijuana cigarette. She was charged and convicted of violating Iowa Code section 719.8 (1991), introducing a controlled substance into a detention facility. We affirm.
On appeal, Fox claims that her pretrial motion to supprеss evidence gained from her phone call should have been sustained. Fox claims the deputy’s action of monitoring her phone cаll violated her rights under federal and state codes and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We examine these claims in turrn
I.
Federal Code.
Fox argues that the monitoring of her telephone call is illegal under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2520. Title III regulates the intentionаl interception of wire and oral communications. These sections have two purposes; protecting the privacy of wire аnd oral communications and delineating on a uniform basis circumstances and conditions under which interception of wire and oral communications may be authorized.
Providence Journal Co. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Title III is expressly inapplicable to communications intercepted by any device that is operated “by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii). Consequently, the monitoring of an inmate’s conversation in a correctional setting by a law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties does not violate Title III.
United States v. Daniels,
Under 28 C.F.R. section 540.101, federal institutions are required to provide notice to inmates that their calls are subject to monitoring. A federal institution’s failure to give notice of monitoring violates federal law. Fox correctly observes that in each of the cases cited above, the court еmphasized that the inmates were provided notice that their calls were monitored. Fox claims she was not given specific noticе. However, the Story County Jail is not a federal institution and Fox does not cite any similar state statute or regulation that requires notice be givеn. Moreover, we believe that notice is simply one factor to be considered in determining whether an officer is acting “in the ordinary course of his duties.” In making this determination, we must also assess whether the officer is acting lawfully-
The parties stipulated that it was the policy and procedure at the Story County Sheriff’s Office to periodically monitor outgoing phone calls made by inmates in the *831 jail. Consequently, we cоnclude that the monitoring was conducted lawfully by an officer in the ordinary course of his duties. We hold that the deputy sheriff did not violate sectiоns 2510-20 when he monitored Fox’s phone call.
II. State code. Fox maintains that the monitoring of her phone call by the deputy sheriff violated Iowa Code section 727.8 (1991). This section makes it a criminal violation for any person “having no right or authority to do so ... ” to tap into or connect a listening deviсe to any telephone call. This section does not define those persons who have the right or authority to monitor calls. Fox argues, and we agree, that under Iowa law a person acquires the right or authority to monitor telephone conversations from Iowa Cоde chapter 808B which regulates the interception of communications.
Section 808B.1 defines the terms used in the chapter and tracks thе language contained in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-20. Section 808B.l(4)(a) provides that no violation occurs when an electronic, mechanical or other dеvice is “used ... by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of the officer’s duties.” This exception is appliсable here. The deputy sheriff was a law enforcement officer acting in the ordinary course of his duties.
III.
Constitutional claim.
Fox asserts that her fourth amendmеnt rights were violated by the monitoring of her phone calls. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a person “against unreаsonable searches and seizures.... ” To invoke this protection, Fox must, at the threshold, establish a legitimate expectation of privаcy in the area searched or the subject matter seized.
Rakas v. Illinois,
The United States Supreme Court considered whether a prisoner has a reasonablе expectation of privacy in his or her jail cell in
Hudson v. Palmer,
while persоns imprisoned for crime enjoy many of protections of the Constitution, it is also clear that imprisonment carries with it the circumscription or loss of many significant rights.
[[Image here]]
The application of the Fourth Amendment turns on whether “the person invoking its protection can claim a ‘justifiable,’ a ‘reasonable,’ or a ‘legitimate’ expectation of privacy that has been invaded by government action.”
[[Image here]]
Determining whether an еxpectation of privacy is “legitimate” or “reasonable” necessarily entails a balancing of interests. The interests here are the interest of society in the security of its penal institutions and the interest of a prisoner in privacy within his cell.
Id.
at 524-27,
In cases decided after
Hudson,
courts have generally held that the monitoring of prisoner’s phone calls does not violate the prisoner’s fourth amendment rights.
United States v. Willoughby,
*832 ing security and that inmates were prоvided with notice of the monitoring.
When we balance Fox’s right of privacy against the interest of society in the security of its jails, we are satisfied that her rights must yield to the dominant interest of a penal institution in maintaining security. The monitoring of a prisoner’s telephone conversation is certainly as reasonable as strip and body-cavity searches,
see Bell v. Wolfish,
IV. Summary. In summary, we hold that the trial court did not err when it overruled Fox’s motion to suppress evidence. We find no error in Fox’s conviction and sentence.
AFFIRMED.