The Robert Durst Story and the Fourth Amendment Implications that Follow

The Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy can be implicated in many different situations. The HBO documentary, “The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst,” recently revealed an audio recording of Robert Durst seemingly confessing to the murders of three individuals. While one might believe the prosecution’s case will be simple and easy because of this “confession,” the reality of the situation will not make it that simple. Specifically, Robert Durst’s defense attorneys may attempt to argue that his right to privacy was violated when he was recorded in a bathroom wearing a microphone.¹ In order to establish a viable argument regarding Durst’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy, the defense team must be able to show that government was involved in the documentary.² Additionally, the defense team could argue that Durst had a reasonable expectation of privacy when he entered the bathroom.³

This story will be fascinating and worth following because of the unique Fourth Amendment implications. Mainly, did Robert Durst have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he entered the public bathroom while wearing a microphone that he interviewed with just moments before?

[1] Scott Bomboy, The Fourth Amendment and Robert Durst’s alleged confession, National Constitution Center, Mar. 18, 2015, http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/the-fourth-amendment-and-robert-dursts-alleged-confession/ (the microphone was not turned off when Durst went to the bathroom which inevitably recorded Durst mumbling under his breath that he “killed them all.”).

[2] Ashby Jones, Can Robert Durst’s Comments Become Evidence Against Him?, Wall St. J. (Mar. 16, 2015), available at http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/03/16/can-robert-dursts-comments-become-evidence-against-him/.

[3] Id.