It's definitely not entrapment. This defense is usually used in the wrong contaxt when discussing crimes, and is probably about as hard to prove as insanity.
The cops basically have to get you to commit a crime you are otherwise not disposed to do. Just giving you the opportunity is not enough, because if you take the opportunity, you were willing to do it. There has to be virtually coercion or just an ubelievable amount of encouragement from the cops to get entrapment. In this case, he committed the crime way before the police wre involved, anyway.
He also doesn't get Miranda, because that does not apply until a custodial detainment - short of arrest, but it has to be understood that you are not free to leave. Also not applicable in this case.
The question is whether it was an illegal search. I don't know specific case law (I do corporate, not criminal), but basic principles would tell me that it was not illegal. Generally, depending on jurisdiction, a call can be recorded if one person to the conversation knows it is being recorded. Also, searches can be done if the person consents. So, since Amber consented, and she was likely (again, depending on California law) within her righhts to tape it, the tapes are admissible.
A California lawyer or criminal lawyer might correct me, but that it what I see from basic principles.
"If ONE person knew it was being recorded." Oh! Ok.
You know Garagos...........he will try and use EVERYthing he can!
I'm sure the authorities covered their bases with this before they proceded.
Boy, this Scott is one piece of work! :(
He had to know long ago of these tapes, and heard them. I don't think he can use it now, as if these were "sprung" on him. They are either "allowable" or not.
Besides that, I am overjoyed that this sleasbag has to weave his way through this !!!!