In the motion filed Monday afternoon by attorneys Charles H. and Charles M. Rittgers, the defense team makes a case for excluding Richardson’s comments at the Carlisle Police Station outside the presence of officers.
Richardson was interviewed by Carlisle police, who informed her the conversation was being recorded, the motion states. Until the officers took a break.
“While Brooke was being interviewed law enforcement took a break, removed the recording device and stepped outside and allowed her parents to enter the room and speak to her. During this conversation with her parents, which unbeknownst to any of them was still being recorded by law enforcement, Brooke made statements. It is this conversation with her parents that counsel wishes to address as she had reasonable expectation of privacy in that room,” the Rittgers team said in the motion.
The defense said there was no signs of warning in the room that her statements were being recorded.
“… law enforcement removed the only recording device that was pointed out to Brooke, thus creating an impression taht the room and interview were no longer being recorded,” the Rittgers argue. They say a recorder is also located near the ceiling of the interrogation room but there is no signage to indicate conversations were being audio or video recorded.
They added the layout of the room created an explication of privacy which was violated by recording her conversations with her parents.
About the Author
