News Articles

This site contains over 2,000 news articles, legal briefs and publications related to for-profit companies that provide correctional services. Most of the content under the "Articles" tab below is from our Prison Legal News site. PLN, a monthly print publication, has been reporting on criminal justice-related issues, including prison privatization, since 1990. If you are seeking pleadings or court rulings in lawsuits and other legal proceedings involving private prison companies, search under the "Legal Briefs" tab. For reports, audits and other publications related to the private prison industry, search using the "Publications" tab.

For any type of search, click on the magnifying glass icon to enter one or more keywords, and you can refine your search criteria using "More search options." Note that searches for "CCA" and "Corrections Corporation of America" will return different results.

Judge Recommends Denial of Suppression Motion Related to Recordings Obtained from CCA

Loaded on May 15, 2010

Filed under: Corrections Corporation of America/CoreCivic, Informants (Disciplinary Hearings), Evidence, Telephones, Attorney Calls, Telephone Monitoring. Location: Missouri.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert E. Larsen has recommended the denial of a motion to suppress phone recordings of a plot to harm a federal witness obtained by the government through a Rule 17 subpoena without a court order.

While awaiting trial on various federal charges, Gary Eye in concert with his wife, Stephanie Eye, allegedly plotted to harm a federal witness. The alleged plot was uncovered by an informant at a CCA facility who notified the FBI.

The grand jury issued a subpoena to CCA for phone conversations made by Eye. CCA turned the conversations over to the government, but the discs also contained recordings of calls between Eye and his lawyer. The attorney calls were not segregated.

Prior to trial, the government sent a Rule 17 subpoena to CCA for additional phone conversations made by Eye. CCA complied with the subpoena, turning over additional recordings on disc.

Eye moved to suppress the burden of recordings obtained via the Rule 17 subpoena, arguing that the government had failed to obtain a court order for the subpoena. The court found that the government had failed to comply with Rule 17, but Eye suffered no prejudice from the government’s error.

See: United States v. Eye, No. 05-00344-01-CR-W-ODS (W.D. Mo. 2009).

Related legal case

United States v. Eye

Year	2009
Cite	No. 05-00344-01-CR-W-ODS (W.D. Mo. 2009)
Level	District Court
Injunction Status	N/A