Cited by

(“[I]n the exercise of our supervisory power to [e]nsure the fair administration of justice, we hold that all custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded when q

See, d 587, 592 (Minn. 1994) (requiring police to record in-custody interrogations); –02 (Minn. 1992) (holding that in-custody interrogation of a formally accused person who is represented by counsel must not proceed prior to notification of counsel or the presence of counsel).

(exercising “supervisory power to insure the fair administration of justice” to require electronic recording of custodial interrogation but declining to determine whether a defendant has a due-process right to recording).

12 The Minnesota Supreme Court’s is instructive.

He contended that, the firearm must be suppressed because the search of his vehicle was not video recorded.

(adopting the rule that “[a]ll custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded when questioning occurs in a place of detention”).

20, 1995); (involving supreme court’s exercise of supervisory powers).

we adopted a recording rule for custodial interrogations to ensure the fairness of judicial proceedings.

(adopting a new rule that all custodial interrogations be recorded); (adopting a new rule that indigent defendants, including those charged with misdemeanors, are entitled to appointed counsel at trial if they face incarceration).

He also argued that the statement LaBatte made about previous use during the drug-evaluation interrogation should be suppressed because there was no full recording of the Miranda warning, which was a

1 See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (requiring the prosecution to disclose evidence that may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (requiring the prosecution to disclose material exculpatory evidence upon request); (requiring all custodial interrogations at a place of detention to be recorded).

(requiring officers to record custodial interviews with suspects).

See 14 -93 (Minn. 1994) (adopting a recording requirement in the exercise of the supreme court’s “supervisory power to insure the fair administration of justice”).

We have previously “affirmed the admission of spark of life photographs “where the photographs were used to -provide background information about the family and to personalize [the victim] and where the number of photographs used for these purposes was small.’ ” Morrow, d at 727 ().

We have relied on this “supervisory power” to decide “important evidentiary issues with statewide impact.” Id.; -02 (Minn. 1992).

As we have stated, “[p]rivileges are not like other rules of evidence and hold a unique place in the law,” because they have a “substantive component.” ( “like the privilege at issue in Heaney[,] .

He also argued that he did not voluntarily consent to provide a by not recording their request for the sample.

at 81 ( n.5 (Minn. 1994)).

Twenty years ago, the supreme court, exercising its “supervisory power to insure the fair administration of justice,” held that “all custodial interrogation including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning shall be electronically recorded where feasible and must be recorded when

Similarly, we have affirmed the admission of spark of life photographs “where the photographs were used to provide background information about the family and to personalize [the victim] and where the number of photographs used for these purposes was small.”

Under State v. Scales, all custodial interrogations conducted in Minnesota must be electronically recorded, if feasible, “including any information about rights, any waiver of those rights, and all questioning.”