constitutional or statutory right”); United States v. Yunis, 859 F.2d 953, 961 (D.C.Cir.1988) (finding “no constitutional requirement to record confessions by any particular means,” including videotaping, even if such equipment is available); Reinert v. Larkins, 379 F.3d 76, 94 n. 4 (3d Cir.2004) (“Reinert urges us to follow the example of the Supreme Courts of Minnesota and Alaska and rule that, in the absence of an electronic record of the custodial interrogation in the hospital (by either audiotape or videotape), we should suppress the confession as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, protections of due process, protection against self-incrimination, and provisions for effective assistance of counsel and confrontation. See State v. Scales, 518 N.W.2d 587 (Minn.1994) (<HOLDING>); Stephan v. State, 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985)
holding that a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation must be advised in clear and unequivocal language of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer holding that once the right to counsel is invoked custodial interrogation must cease until the suspects attorney is present holding parents custodial rights are a fundamental interest guaranteed due process protection holding that custodial interrogations must be recorded where feasible holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination