respect to privileges.” Accordingly, we find the exclusionary clause of La.Code Evid. art. 1101(B)(8), when considered in pan mate-riae with La.Code Evid. art. 104, may be read to generally exempt hearings on motions to suppress evidence from the rules of evidence except with respect to privileges. Thus, La.Code Evid. art. 1101(B) may be read harmoniously with the provisions of La.Code Evid. art. 104(A). Furthermore, even though this Court has never elaborated on the interplay of Articles 104 and 1101 of the Code of Evidence, our research shows we have recognized hearsay rules do not apply in hearings on motions to suppress evidence. State v. Castleberry, 99-1388 (La.4/13/99), 758 So.2d 749; see also United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 172-75, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974) (<HOLDING>) After reviewing the jurisprudence and the
holding that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hearings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence there is therefore much to be said for the proposition that in proceedings where the judge himself is considering the admissibility of evidence the exclusionary rules aside from rules of privilege should not be applicable and the judge should receive the evidence and give it such weight as his judgment and experience counsel holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings holding that the rules of evidence do not apply when a court is deciding upon preliminary questions dealing with the admissibility of evidence under rule 104 except for questions of privilege holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses