Following an examination of fifth amendment (right against self-incrimination), sixth amendment (right to counsel), fourth amendment (right to privacy), and Title III statutory challenges, the authors conclude that the surreptitious recording of suspect conversations is an effective investigative technique. If used properly, the technique can withstand both constitutional and statutory challenges. Because the technique does not amount to interrogation for purposes of Miranda, it is not necessary to advise suspects of their constitutional rights and obtain a waiver prior to recording their conversations. To avoid a sixth amendment problem, the technique should not be used after the filing of formal charges or the initial appearance in court, unless the conversation does not involve a government actor, the conversation involves a government actor who has assumed the role of a listening post, or the conversation pertains to a crime other than the one with which the suspect has been charged. To avoid both fourth amendment and Title III concerns, suspects should not be given any specific assurances that their conversations are private. In addition, State and local law enforcement officers should consult with their legal advisors prior to using this investigative technique. 40 endnotes