The case centered around a defendant, Scott Holyoke, who was notified that his call was subject to monitoring and proceeded to speak to his attorney, Lawrence Novak. Jail officials mistakenly excluded the attorney’s name from the do-not-record list and the officer in charge of investigating Holyoke listened to recordings that are ordinarily out of bounds. Novak resorted to using some rather suspect means of courtroom procedure that included falsifying affadavits in return for some of the profits from Holyoke’s ongoing Meth ring. Holyoke was approached by officers who asked him to participate in their case against Novak and he accepted.
O’Connor noted that the Court was bound to judge only on Novaks Fourth Amendment claim (not the more obvious Sixth Amendment questions.) Check out the whole opinion here. It makes for a fairly short but interesting read.