*Please reply to the inquiry by the reference with an understanding

*Please reply to the inquiry with an interpretation of the reference

Issue: What overarching issue was the court addressing or resolving (one questions not a paragraph just one sentence encapsulating)

Facts: What are the facts that the court described and cared about?

facts section should only include the actual facts of the case.

Rule of Law:What rule please mention the statue, case, legal principle mentioned in the images, did the court apply

*rule of law segment should only include the actual statutes, constitutional amendments or cases the Court applies the facts

Application- how did the court apply the rule to the facts?

*application section should be how the Court applied the facts to the law

Conclusion: what result did the court reach and WHY?

United States v. Willoughby

Result 1 of 1 in this book for l(".tuintin was convicted of armed bank robbery. The present prosecution arises of his efforts. with Willoughby, to prevent certain witnesses from tetifying at the trial. While he was inmate in the New York Metropolitian Correctional Center ("MOO\"), waiting trial on the bank robbery chargesI Quintin called Willoughby at his home. using a correctional facility telephone that was available to inmates. Pursusant to MOO policy. all inmate calls made from correctional institutional telephones, except properly placed calls to attorneys. were automatically recorded. MCC policy, all inmate calls made from correctional institutional telephones, except properly placed calls to attorneys, were automatically recorded. Quintin's call to Willoughby was thus recorded. During the conversation, Quintin and Willoughby dis- cussed having a hit man kill a certain wit- ness to prevent him from testifying. Quintin told Willoughby he would call back the next day and give him the hit man's telephone number. He urged Willoughby to make arrangements quickly, stating that "we gotta do it this week." On the basis of these events, Quinton and Willoughby were indicted for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to tamper with wit- nesses. They moved to suppress the tape of their telephone conversation on the grounds that the taping violated the Wiretap Act ("Title III"). KEARSE, Circuit Judge:Title III generally prohibits the inten- tional interception of wire communications, including telephone conversations, in the absence of authorization by court order. The prohibition against interception does not apply, however, when \"one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.\" Such consent may be express or implied. In the prison setting, when the institution has advised inmates that their telephone calls will be monitored and has prominently posted a notice that their \"use of institutional telephones con- stitutes consent to this monitoring,\" the inmates' use of those telephones constitutes implied consent to the monitoring within the meaning of Title III. In the present case, the record established that MCC had a policy and practice of auto- matically recording and randomly monitor- ing all inmate calls, other than those properly placed to an attorney, made on institutional telephones. Inmates received ample notice of this practice. First, they were advised of the practice at orientation lectures upon their arrival at MCC; Quintin attended such a lecture in March 1987. In addition, MCC posted above each telephone available to inmates a bilingual sign, the English version of which read: NOTICE The Bureau of Prisons reserves the authority to monitor conversations on this telephone. Your use of institutional telephones constitutes consent to this mon- itoring. A properly placed telephone call to an attorney is not monitored. In these circumstances the district court could properly nd that Quintin impliedly consented to the monitoring and taping of his call to Willoughby. Finally, Quintin was given a form that stated as follows: The Bureau of Prisons reserves the author- ity to monitor (this includes recording) conversations on any telephone located within its institutions, said monitoring to be done to preserve the security and orderly management of the institution and to protect the public. An inmate's use of institutional telephones constitutes consent to this monitoring