You are a police detective and, though you lack probable cause, you are convinced that Amy Able is the mastermind behind a series of art thefts in the north end of town. You believe that Amy plans the thefts, hires local thieves, and then sells the artwork overseas. You know that her usual thief has been arrested on an unrelated charge, so you decide to arrange a meeting between Amy Able and a confidential informant (CI) with a history of petty theft. At the meeting, your CI is wearing a wire to tape the conversations. During the meeting, Amy is reluctant to go ahead with more thefts, because she tells your CI that she is "out of the business" and wants to retire. At this point, your listening device malfunctions, but your CI later tells you he convinced Amy by threatening to go to the police and ruining her reputation as an art dealer. Amy reluctantly agrees to plan the heist and, several days later, meets with your CI to go over the details. At this point, you know that she has committed sufficient acts under local law to be guilty of conspiracy to commit theft, and you can arrest her. You give the DA the transcript of the conversations recorded by the wire, and the DA says it is a "slam dunk." What legal issues, if any, are raised by the facts? What should you do, if anything, as the detective on this case?