The officer audio recorded the arrest of the accused, the trip to the police station, the conversations at the police station, including enabling the accused to call duty counsel, taking breath samples and ultimately giving him a ride home. The accused argued that the recording was an interception of a private communication and ought to be governed by section 184.2(1) of the Code. The court did not agree. The conversations between the police officer and the detainee were not 'private conversations' and the detainee did not have an expectation of privacy in what was being said. R. v. Tigui, 2010 BCSC 1988