We recently advised DPS to record the conversations of two defendants sitting in the back seat of a patrol car. The officer said that it was against DPS policy because the defendants did not know they were being recorded.

Has anyone heard of this policy?

What is the point of a law that requires officers to record traffic stops if they don't include what is said inside the patrol car?

I have never heard of this policy and do not see the logic in it(should it actually be a policy). It is quite clear to me that a person has no privacy expectations in a police car and that all conversations are fair game. Heck, if a defendant were to make a res gestae statement regarding the commission of a crime, nobody would argue its admissibility (at least they would not prevail). What is the difference if the statements are recorded???

Some Harris County agencies had that same reservation, but once the law was disclosed to them, the policy changed. Maybe go to the source and address the problem. In the least, I would think that a peace officer would want to know if two people in the back seat of a patrol car are planning on imminent acts of hostility against that officer???

John, that is the policy of DPS. I came across it several years ago. However, the local DPS station said that it could tape surreptitiously if I gave them a letter saying that I felt it was authorized. Needless to say, I drafted the letter, cited the appropriate case, and the problem was solved. Nobody ever said that DPS was right all the time. These are the folks who also have/had a policy that said you couldn't use a drug sniffing dog without probable cause. Just educate them.

Several weeks ago, I sent out a memo to all our local law enforcement agencies informing them of the ability to utilize search warrants to get blood in DWI cases. We even prepared a "sample" affidavit they could use to simplify the process. I emphasized this was not a practice to be used in every case, but was an option an officer may want to use in some cases. Our local DPS Sargent refused to relay the information to his troops claiming that it was contrary to DPS policy/they did not agree with the memo. I have not followed this "opinion" up the chain yet but hope that this too is not against some policy.

Maybe y'all could try contacting DPS's counsel to try and change these things at the top. Janette Ansolobehere, one of their lawyers, posts on here pretty regularly.

We did the same thing Montgomery County did and sent them a letter stating it was not conduct covered by the Illegal Interception statute. We also spent a lot of time with our troopers in their area training and we have not had any problems since.