After a liquor store robbery, police receive an anonymous tip naming an employee. The police persuade the employee's neighbor to visit the employee's home with a hidden tape recorder to discuss the crime. The employee admits the robbery. The employee moves to suppress the recording on the ground that the method violated the state constitution. If the state has a clear precedent that such recording violates the employee's state constitutional rights and the remedy is exclusion, should the court grant suppression?

After a liquor store robbery, police receive an anonymous tip naming an employee. The police persuade the employee's neighbor to visit the employee's home with a hidden tape recorder to discuss the crime. The employee admits the robbery. The employee moves to suppress the recording on the ground that the method violated the state constitution. If the state has a clear precedent that such recording violates the employee's state constitutional rights and the remedy is exclusion, should the court grant suppression?

• A. No, because federal law prohibits suppression.
• B. No, because the state constitution cannot provide greater protection.
• C. Yes, because the state constitution may provide greater protection and the remedy is suppression.
• D. Yes, because there is state precedent that the recording violated rights and should be excluded.

Answer: (C)