State v. Brantley (2025): No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Recorded Jail Calls & Rational-Basis Equal Protection

Introduction

In State v. Brantley, 311 Ga. 1 (2025), the Supreme Court of Georgia resolved two important issues: (1) whether the State may appeal an order excluding recorded jail phone calls under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4), and (2) whether a pretrial detainee has a reasonable expectation of privacy or an equal protection right to prevent the use of non-attorney jail calls at trial. Barron Brantley, charged with multiple violent offenses including malice murder and rape, made incriminating calls from the Fulton County jail. The District Attorney’s Office obtained and sought to use three of those calls. Brantley moved in limine to exclude them, claiming violations of his federal and state constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection. The trial court granted his motion, and the State appealed.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Justice Peterson, writing for a unanimous Court, held:

The State’s appeal was properly taken under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4), which allows appeals from orders excluding evidence “illegally obtained,” as interpreted by established Georgia precedent.
Pretrial detainees have no reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded jail phone calls made to non-attorneys. Georgia cases such as Preston v. State, 282 Ga. 210 (2007), control.
Treating incarcerated and non-incarcerated defendants differently as to recorded calls does not violate equal protection. The distinction is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of maintaining jail security.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s order excluding Brantley’s jail calls and remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a long line of Georgia decisions interpreting the State’s right to appeal and the privacy expectations of incarcerated defendants:

OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4) – Gives the State a right to appeal orders excluding evidence “illegally seized or obtained.” Although the text refers to “seized,” Georgia cases like State v. Andrade, 298 Ga. 464 (2016), and Strickman v. State, 253 Ga. 287 (1984), extend it to evidence suppressed as unlawfully obtained.
Preston v. State, 282 Ga. 210 (2007) – Holds that pretrial detainees possess no reasonable expectation of privacy in non-attorney jail phone calls.
Keller v. State, 308 Ga. 492 (2020) – Confirms that calls to third parties are not privileged and that defense counsel’s failure to suppress such calls is not constitutionally deficient performance.
United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971) and Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979) – Federal precedents establishing the “third-party doctrine,” under which voluntary disclosures to a third party negate a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Equal Protection Jurisprudence – The Court applied rational-basis review, citing Regan v. State, 317 Ga. 612 (2023), and Reyes v. State, 318 Ga. 340 (2024), to confirm that distinctions based on incarceration status satisfy equal protection so long as they serve a legitimate state interest.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in two steps:

Appealability Under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4): The State’s notice invoked subsection (a)(4), which permits appeals from rulings excluding evidence “illegally obtained.” Although subsection (a)(5) sets alternative procedural requirements for appeals of excluded evidence, it applies only when an appeal cannot be brought under (a)(4). Georgia precedent consistently treated orders excluding evidence on unlawful-means grounds as appealable under (a)(4), even when the text refers to “seized.” The Court declined to revisit stare decisis.
Merits—Privacy & Equal Protection:
- Fourth Amendment/Georgia Privacy Claim: Under Preston, pretrial detainees lack any reasonable expectation of privacy in recorded jail calls not made to counsel. Brantley received an automated warning that his calls were monitored and recorded; he cannot now claim suppression on privacy grounds.
- Equal Protection Claim: Non-incarcerated defendants may place unmonitored calls, but incarcerated detainees do not have that same liberty. The distinction is not arbitrary; it is rationally tailored to the legitimate penological interest of ensuring jail security and preventing contraband or coordination of illicit activity.

3. Impact

State v. Brantley cements two key principles in Georgia criminal procedure:

State’s Appellate Rights: Prosecutors may rely on OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4) to contest pretrial exclusion orders based on unlawful-means theories, even if the evidence is not “seized” in the literal sense. Defense counsel and trial courts must account for this broad appeal right when crafting suppression orders.
Privacy Expectations of Detainees: Incarcerated defendants should expect that non-attorney phone calls made on jail phones will be recorded, shared with prosecutors, and used at trial. The decision forecloses novel privacy or equal protection challenges by detainees seeking to suppress such evidence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy: A legal test asking whether a person legitimately expects a communication or location to remain private. If society recognizes that expectation as reasonable, the Fourth Amendment may protect it.

Third-Party Doctrine: When you voluntarily share information with a third party (e.g., a phone company or jail), you lose your constitutional privacy interest in that information.

OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4) vs. (a)(5):

(a)(4) lets the State appeal orders excluding evidence “illegally seized or obtained” before jeopardy attaches.
(a)(5) applies when evidence exclusion motions are filed 30+ days before trial and require specific procedural certifications to appeal.

Rational-Basis Review: A standard of equal protection analysis. So long as a law or practice is rationally related to a legitimate government objective (here, jail security), it does not violate equal protection.

Conclusion

State v. Brantley reaffirms that (1) Georgia appellate courts will broadly interpret the State’s right to appeal under OCGA § 5-7-1(a)(4) to cover evidence “illegally obtained,” and (2) pretrial detainees have no Fourth Amendment or state constitutional privacy right in recorded non-attorney jail phone calls. The decision also clarifies that equal protection is satisfied when the State treats incarcerated defendants differently from those at liberty, provided the distinction furthers legitimate penological interests. This ruling will guide trial courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in handling and litigating the admissibility of recorded jail communications in Georgia criminal prosecutions.