A SERIES OF CASES ARE EXAMINED TO ILLUSTRATE PROBLEMS WHICH ARISE WHEN A CRIME IS COMMITTED IN ONE STATE WHILE SEARCHERS FOR EVIDENCE, CONFESSIONS, OR OTHER POLICE ACTIVITY TAKES PLACE IN ANOTHER STATE. CONFLICTS ARISE WHEN STATE LAWS GOVERNING COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OR SUSPECT'S RIGHTS DURING QUESTIONING VARY BETWEEN THE STATES INVOLVED. A SERIES OF APPEALS HAVE TESTED BOTH THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OR THE REFUSAL TO ADMIT EVIDENCE THUS GATHERED. GENERALLY STATE SUPREME COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE LAWS OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE ACTION TAKES PLACE GOVERN THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED. AS MORE AND MORE STATES COME INTO STATUTORY COMPLIANCE WITH RECENT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS GOVERNING RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS, THE PROBLEM IS DECREASING. HOWEVER, CONFLICTS BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW ARE STILL A PROBLEM. FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS OF DRUG LAW VIOLATIONS OR OTHER CRIMES UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION ARE RUN UNDER FEDERAL LAW. IN CASES INVOLVING LOCAL POLICE, THE STATE OR MUNICIPAL OFFICERS OPERATE UNDER STATE LAW, WHICH MANY TIMES DIFFERS FROM FEDERAL LAW. A WIRETAPPING CASE IS EXAMINED. UNDER FEDERAL LAW THE WIRETAPPING WAS LEGAL. THE RESULTS WERE TURNED OVER TO CALIFORNIA POLICE. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW AT THE TIME, ALL WIRETAPPING WAS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. THE CONVICTION WAS ALTERNATELY REVERSED BY A PANEL OPINION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, THEN UPHELD BY THE ENTIRE COURT. THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF OPINION UPHOLDING THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW, YET THESE GENERALITIES HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY TESTED IN THE COURTS. THIS DISCUSSION OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF SUCH CONFLICTS IS HEAVILY FOOTNOTED. (GLR)