Idaho has no statute or court rule requiring recording of custodial interrogations.
Supreme Court Ruling
State v. Rhoades, 120 Idaho 795, 804–05, 820 P.2d 665, 674–75 (1991): Paul Rhoades was convicted of murder after police testified that he admitted to the murder in an unrecorded interview at a police station. Rhoades appealed his conviction and claimed the failure of the police to tape record his statements should render those statements inadmissible. In his argument, Rhoades relied on the persuasive authority of Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985), the Alaska Supreme Court case that held that statements made in custodial interrogations are inadmissible if the interrogation was not electronically recorded. The Supreme Court of Idaho denied Rhoades’ appeal, and stated: “We cannot accept the contention that in order to be admissible, statements made in custody must be tape recorded by the police. The defense cites an Alaska case . . . We decline to adopt Alaska’s standard in Idaho.”
Departments we have identified that presently record:
|Ada CS||Dept Fish & Games||Lincoln CS|
|Blaine CS||Garden City||Meridian|
|Boise City||Gooding CS||Nampa|
|Bonneville CS||Hailey||Post Falls|
|Caldwell||ID Falls||State Dept of Corr.|
|Canyon CS||Jerome||State Police|
|Cassia CS||Jerome CS||Twin Falls|
|Coeur d’ Alene||Ketchum|
Pre-Trial Suppression & Fourth Amendment Issues
This Trial Guide is a topical and practical handbook examining the nuts and bolts of the most current Fourth Amendment & Pre-Trial Suppression issues encountered in modern criminal cases.
Defense Counsel Playbook for Eyewitness ID Cases
This Trial Guide was written to help counsel use existing case law to its strongest advantage, and to create a framework for appellate challenges urging courts to adopt leading cases.
Ultimate Cross 2.0
This special CLE compilation program includes the highest-rated presentations on Cross-Examination techniques from NACDL's most recent seminars (2017-2019).
Forensic Sciences in Criminal Cases: A Multidiscipline Primer
In order to challenge forensic evidence, experts, reports and findings commonly encountered in the courtroom, an attorney must first have a basic understanding of the forensic issues that they will be confronting.