State Statutes Outlawing Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices & Does not include statutes which forbid disclosure of information secured pursuant to court approved interception or while assisting in transmission. 86* Statutes which like federal law outlaw equipment primarily designed for surreptitious rather than unlawful use. 86 Statutes creating a cause of action for violations concerning stored communications specifically are designated (s). Even in the absence of a statute, state law may recognize a common law cause of action sounding in privacy, see Restatement (Second) of Torts, §652B; Nader v. General Motors Corp., 25 N.Y.2d 560, 307 N.Y.S.2d 647, 255 N.E.2d 765 (1970); Billing v. Atkinson, 489 S.W. 858 (Tex. 1973). 37 In each of the states unless there is a more demanding state law, ECPA's one party consent provisions are controlling, although not noted here some of the party consent states permit one party consent in law enforcement cases. CRS-30 Indiana: Ind. Code Ann. §35-33.5-1-5 (one party consent); Iowa: Iowa Code Ann. §727.8 (one party consent), Kentucky: Ky Rev Stat. §526.010 (one party consent), Maine: Me.Rev Stat. Ann. ch.15 §709 (one party consent); Ann. Massachusetts: Mass. Gen.Laws Missouri: Missouri has no wiretap or Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-702 (one party New Hampshire: N.H.Rev. Stat. Ann. §570- New Mexico: N.M.Stat. Ann. §§30-12-1 (one North Carolina: N.C.Gen.Stat. §14-155 (outlaws wiretapping with no mention of consent interception); Ohio: Ohio Rev.Code §2953.52 (one party consent); Oregon: Ore.Rev.Stat. §165.540 (one party Rhode Island: R.L.Gen.Laws §§11-35-21 Kansas: Kan.Stat.Ann. §§21-4001,21-4002 (all party consent for wiretapping, one party consent for other forms of electronic eavesdropping); Louisiana: La.Rev.Stat.Ann. §15:1303 (one party consent); Maryland: Md.Cts. & Jud.Pro.Code Ann. $10-402 (all party consent); Michigan: Mich. Comp.Laws Ann. §750.539c (all party consent); Mississippi: Miss.Code §41-29-531 (one party consent); Montana: Mont.Conde Ann. §§45-8-213 (all parties must consent); Nevada: Nev.Rev.Stat. §§200.620, 200.650 (one party consent); New Jersey: N.J.Stat.Ann. §§2A:156-4 (one party consent); New York: N.Y.Penal Law §250.00 (one party consent); North Dakota: N.D.Cent.Code §§ 12.1-15-02 (one party consent); Oklahoma: Okla.Stat.Ann. tit.13 §176.4 (one party consent); Pennsylvania: Pa.Stat. Ann. tit.18 $5704 (all parties must consent); South Carolina: South Carolina does not appear to have a wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping statute, therefore the federal one party consent law is the only law that applies there; Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. §§65-21-110, 39-3-1324 forbid wiretapping, the courts have upheld the validity of a police. interception with one party consent, State v. Eldridge, 759 S.W. 756 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1988); State v. Buford, 666 S.W.2d 473 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1983); Utah: Utah Code Ann. §§77-23a-4 (one party consent); Virginia: Va.Code §19.2-62 (one party consent); |