The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office disclosed Thursday that an administrative breakdown led to the recording of confidential jail phone calls between people awaiting trial and their public‑defender attorneys, and that those recordings were subsequently shared with prosecutors. The error affects the integrity of attorney‑client privilege and raises concerns for defendants who rely on confidential counsel while incarcerated.
According to Mission Local, the sheriff’s department normally records nearly every call made by inmates, routing the recordings to the district attorney’s office when requested. Calls involving attorneys listed on an exclusion list are supposed to be exempt. However, the department failed to process emails containing at least 38 attorney phone numbers, resulting in the recording of “over a dozen” privileged calls in the past two years. The public defender’s office discovered that at least 20 of its confidential calls had been recorded and delivered to prosecutors.
Deputy public defender Kwixuan Maloof, who submitted his phone number on July 8, 2025, said five calls he made from that number in the last year were recorded and shared. Three of those calls involved homicide cases, and each discussed legal strategy. “I mean, [the prosecutor] cannot un‑hear what he heard,” Maloof said, emphasizing the lasting impact of the breach.
Public defenders first learned of the improper sharing when a prosecutor emailed a colleague, recognizing the public defender’s voice on a recording and then stopped listening. In other instances, defenders uncovered recordings while reviewing documents prosecutors had provided before trial.
Sheriff’s department spokesperson Tara Moriarty described the incident as an “administrative mistake.” She explained that attorney telephone numbers are emailed to the department and placed on an exclusion list to prevent recording. “Some emails containing those excluded numbers were not processed correctly,” Moriarty wrote. The department has since revised and updated the exclusion lists and froze its routine sharing of recordings on Aug. 27. Since that freeze, district‑attorney staff must subpoena any recordings they wish to obtain.
Mission Local’s data show that district‑attorney staff requested phone‑call records from the sheriff’s department more than 1,000 times between Jan. 1, 2025, and July 2026. The department has not indicated whether it will adopt new technology or administrative procedures to strengthen safeguards, though Moriarty said an evaluation is underway.
The breach has eroded trust among defendants, many of whom now avoid phone contact with their attorneys. “They know the district attorney has been listening to our phone calls,” Maloof said, noting that clients are reluctant to speak on the phone even when warned that recordings are prohibited.
What’s next: The sheriff’s office continues an internal investigation and has not announced any long‑term policy changes. The district attorney’s office has not responded to Mission Local’s request for comment. Residents and defendants should watch for updates on revised recording protocols and any legislative or judicial actions that may arise from the controversy.
Sources: missionlocal.org
