The scenario (not hypothetical): A police department installs covert video and audio recording equipment in it's interview/interrogation room. A suspect is interviewed regarding a felony offense. The entire interview is video and audio recorded. The provisions of 38.21 and 38.22 are met: all persons on tape are identified and the suspect is read his rights, acknowledges his understanding of them, and continues to freely discuss the facts of the case and his involvement in it, and in the process, gives a full oral confession. No written statement is made.

The questions: Is there an obligation for the officer to inform the suspect that the interview is being recorded? Would failure to so notify the suspect result in the recording being inadmissable for any reason?

I have been unable to locate any information which would preclude such covert recordings from being used, and the language of 38.22 appears to allow them. The broad ruling in Scheineman v. State would seem to support covert recordings of confessions as well. My personal opinion is that if it is not specifically disallowed, then it must be allowed. I have, on the odd, rare, occurrence, been wrong before, though, and would hate to be adversely surprized.

I would be most interested in learning if anyone has had experience with this kind of recording and if those experiences were good or bad.

There is no requirement that a defendant be notified of a recording device. It is not part of the predicate, statutory, or constitutional.

At one time, the confession statute had such a requirement, but it was removed.

Exactly when did people begin to believe it was the duty of the government to stop them from confessing? Miranda was decided to avoid coerced custodial confessions in response to interrogation. It was not designed or meant to stop confessions, which, by the way, are very good for you.