zlacker

I don't think this analogy makes sense. If you are in a public setting having a lowered-voice conversation you think is private, but you speak in a way that more people hear you than intended.. then.. you don't have any right to have that be inadmissible in court.

Just like posting things on your social media profile and 1000s of people see it instead of 100s of people you intended.

Another offline analogy would be - talking on your cellphone, you have the right to be free of warrantless wiretap.

However, if you sit down in a bar that you thought "was cool" and take a phone call, but the bar happens to have accidentally let a cop or "narc" in .. and they overheard your end of the phone call because you talk too loud, then what they testify hearing is totally admissible in court, and you are an idiot.

>>steveB+(OP)
I stated: "like lowering the volume of their voice so nobody else can hear,"

Then you come back with: "but you speak in a way that more people hear you than intended.."

You just changed what I specifically said so it would fit your narrative. Yes, you can be in a bar and think you're talking quietly, but the 3 pints and 2 shots you've consumed means that you're still yelling, just means you're a drunken fool. If you're in a restaurant or some other public setting while sober, you can actually talk to someone without the rest of the public hearing.