Parent suspects sexual abuse when young child is with other parent so an audio recording device is hidden in one of the child's toys. Any possible way this recording (which is audio only and captured the sounds of sexual abuse and the accompanying conversations) can be admissible? Parent that planted the device was not present during the recordings, and the recordings at issue were not in public but rather at the abusing parent's residence (to which the child brought the toy containing the recording device). I'm not finding any case law that shows it can come in. Is there any type of an exception that might help us use this against the child predator?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ADA,

There is a CCA case where they upheld recording of a phone line by a parent. Alameda v. State, 235 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Take a look at that.

I know I have read a line of cases dealing with evidence obtained by non law enforcement officers who may have had to trespass to obtain the evidence. I believe that in one case parents of the defendant entered his truck without permission in order to obtain evidence of a suspected crime with the intent to turn over the evidence to the police. The court held that it was admissible because the parent's entry into the truck was justified under the circumstances.

The similar argument you can make is that the parent putting the recording device in her child's toy was necessary under the circumstances and that she was getting the evidence to turn over to the police. Also I would look at the language of 16.02. It requires the intent to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic "communication". Did mom have the intent to intercept a "communication" or did she intent to intercept the sounds of the sexual abuse?