My question involves criminal law for the state of: Tennessee
I am a defendant in a case wherein the stateís main piece of evidence is a recorded phone conversation between a stateís witness and myself. The police were present for recording, provided training to the witness as well as the recording equipment. It is not a question as to whether or not the witness was acting as an agent of the police; she in fact was. When this recorded conversation occurred, the witness was in Tennessee, and I was in Illinois on my cell phone. Tn wiretapping laws only require one party of the conversation be aware of the recording, but in Illinois the law requires all parties be aware of the recording especially when law enforcement is involved. Since the police in my case did not secure a warrant for the recording, the admissibility of this evidence relies on if the police violated any laws while obtaining it.
My lawyer (not a very motivated lawyer) has told me that the only way that a Tennessee court judge will suppress the call is if we can show the Tn police violated either Tn or federal law. Federal law for recording telephone conversations only requires one party to be aware of the conversation. But, the fact remains that the police DID violate Illinois law.
The question I have is: is there any Tennesse or federal case law that concludes that the police cannot violate other stateís laws while gathering evidence AND/OR that I had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that I was not being recorded by the police. Again, I am interested specifically in case law.
Any help with this would be much appreciated. The police in this specific town are all members of the good old boys club, and donít feel that they need to do full investigations (especially when the suspect is an outsider). The fact that itís been two years since my arrest and I still havenít been read my Miranda rights shows this. Also, if they would have done a real investigation, not only would I never have been charged, but they would have also realized that their witness is personally benefiting from me being charged. The law should be a shield, not a sword.