Thanks for your question. Here is the information you asked for hear about telephone taping. There is both federal awl and each state has one too. Oftenit vaires here depending on which state you are in here. At any rate here is the article you need..

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/


A second source with tehhe actual law-click on federal law here..

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

If this is a police cruiser tape then I'm afraid it is admissable here for prosecution. I?f the police has say probable casue to stop here then it is admissable. You would have to have criminal lawyer to arugue abotu probable casue and other motion to limit here.

If it a criminal case they will appoint her a lawyer to file such motions if she is indigent. It wouldn't be law it would be contitutionla argument that there wasn't probable cause here and theat the stop and the tapling was invalid and that the stop, arrest, and taping were all tainted because no probable cause..

There are many angles here to dwi arrests including taping. Here is reference to some potential defenses..

http://sandiego.backpage.com/LegalServices/free_dui_dwi_consult_with_top_dui_defense_lawyers/classifieds/ViewAd?oid=1431236


RayAnswers39934.6629520833

If it was a traffic stop then yes they can. They the police are one party and they consented. If the video contradicts what they found it might help you. But yes they can video here under the law and it is admissable at hearing.

The judge here decides. The lawyers argue admissibility. These are the kinds of cases that often get appealed depending on the ruling. As you can see here below is Brady kind of taping issue and you can see how it unfolds.

The judge here would have to rule on the admissibility and other Brady kinds of issues. I'm not waffling on you here but these can vary widely as the judge decides here and it can be pretty unpredictable..

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/87/87.F3d.1325.95-30115.html