Reference no: EM133647398

Two men discussed how to set up a drug network over the phone. The conversation was tape-recorded inadvertently by one of them. The one who did the recording said on the tape that he had already contacted his cocaine sources to ratchet up the pace for starting up the business. The conspiracy continued from that point and became a full-fledged drug trafficking player within a few years thereafter. The two conspirators were arrested for drug dealing and charged with conspiracy about five years after the initial taped conversation. The tape recording was found in the first man's belongings. The authorities attempted to introduce the tape at the trial of the second man, who had never possessed or seen the tape. The second man objected that the tape was hearsay and should be excluded. Will the court most likely exclude the tape?

1. No, the tape is admissible, it being a non-hearsay statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
2. No, the tape is admissible because it was an adoptive admission against interest.
3. Yes, the tape must be excluded because it is pure hearsay without any applicable exception.
4. Yes, the tape must be excluded because it violated the constitutional right to privacy of the second man.

Why is the 4th option incorrect?