Opinion ID: 6111057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Telephone Recording between Detective O'Kelley and King

Text: King first argues that the taped audio recording of the telephone conversation between him and Detective O'Kelley should have been excluded pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-60-120. In the conversation, King admitted that he had a relationship with Price and that the child she was carrying may have been his. Section 5-60-120 prohibits a person from intercepting and recording a telephone conversation between two parties unless that person is a party to the communication, or one of the parties has given prior consent to such interception and recording. We considered a similar situation in Elliott v. State , 335 Ark. 387 , 389-90, 984 S.W.2d 362 , 363 (1998). In that case the defendant's wife recorded telephone conversations between the defendant and his minor stepdaughter, which revealed that the defendant had sex with the minor. Like King, Elliott argued that section 5-60-120 precluded the tape's introduction. This court rejected that argument because while the statute makes the recording of the conversations unlawful, it does not proscribe the admissibility of an unlawful recording. Id. at 389 , 984 S.W.2d 362 , 363. We reasoned that the search and seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals; the corollary to this proposition is that the exclusionary rule is not intended as a restraint upon the acts of private individuals. Id. We find this authority  persuasive and affirm the circuit court's denial of King's motion in limine to exclude the audio recording. King also argues on appeal that the recording should have been precluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2515 , which is a statutory exclusionary rule that generally prohibits the introduction into evidence of illegally intercepted communications or evidence derived from illegally intercepted communications. However, King failed to make this argument to the circuit court, so it is not preserved for our appellate review. Hicks v. State , 327 Ark. 652 , 941 S.W.2d 387 (1997).