No. 14-5123 Huff, et al. v. Spaw Page 14 the Huffs’ approximately 15-minute conversation in the hotel room, Bertha Huff exposed her statements only to her husband, who in turn inadvertently caused some of those statements to be intercepted by Spaw. James Huff discovered that he had made a pocket-dial approximately 89 minutes into a 91-minute call and told his wife that “my phone is on.” To the extent that Bertha Huff understood this statement to mean that James’s phone was still connected to another phone, she would have exposed her statements in the apparent final two minutes of the call to any outsider on the other end of the call and therefore would not have enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to only those statements. As to statements Bertha Huff made prior to this two-minute window, her awareness that her husband may have been carrying an interception-capable device—i.e., an iPhone—did not displace her expectation of privacy. We held in Boddie v. American Broadcasting Company Inc. that someone who knowingly converses with a person who may be carrying an interception-capable device can nonetheless enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy from interception. 731 F.2d 333, 338–39 (6th Cir. 1984). Boddie agreed to an interview with a TV reporter but refused to give consent to being recorded. Id. at 335. The reporter nonetheless secretly recorded the conversation, and Boddie sued under Title III. Ibid. In reversing the district court’s summary judgment for the defendant, we held that, although “Boddie was aware that she was speaking to a reporter from ABC,” “it remain[ed] an issue of fact for the jury whether Boddie had an expectation that the interview was not being recorded and whether that expectation was justified under the circumstances.” Id. at 338–39. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that there are “some circumstances where a person does not have an expectation of total privacy, but still would be protected by [Title III] because he was not aware of the specific nature of another’s invasion of his privacy.” Id. at 339 n.5 (emphasis added). Similarly, we do not require Bertha Huff to exhibit an expectation of total privacy—e.g., by searching her husband and forcing him to turn off his phone—in order to be protected under Title III. Because Bertha Huff made statements in the privacy of her hotel room, was not responsible for exposing those statements to an outside audience, and was (until perhaps the final two minutes) unaware of the exposure, she exhibited an expectation of privacy.