87 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. §35-39.5-1-5 (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 8709 (one party consent); Massachusetts: Mass.Gen.Laws Ann. ch.272 §§99 (all parties must consent); Minnesota: Minn.Stat. Ann. §626A.02 (one party consent); Missouri: Missouri has no wiretap or electronic surveillance statutes, therefore only federal law with its one party consent applies; Nebraska: Neb.Rev.Stat. §86-702 (one party consent); New Hampshire: N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §570A:2 (all party consent); New Mexico: N.M.Stat. Ann. §§30-12-1 (one party consent); 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 consent for wiretapping and all parties must consent for other forms of electronic eavesdropping); Rhode Island: R.I.Gen.Laws §§11-35-21 (one party consent); South Dakota: S.D. Comp.Laws §§23A-35A20 (one party consent); Texas: Tex.Penal Code §16.02 (one party consent); Vermont: Vermont has no wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping statutes, therefore the federal one party consent provisions are the only law that applies there; Washington: Wash.Rev. Code Ann. §9.73.030 (all parties must consent); Wisconsin: Wis.Stat. Ann. §968.31 (one party consent); 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. §877-23a-4 (one party consent); Virginia: Va.Code $19.2-62 (one party consent); West Virginia: W.Va.Code §62-1D-3 (one party consent); Wyoming: Wyo.Stat. §7-3-602 (one party consent); District of Columbia: D.C.Code §23-542 (one party consent). CRS-31 Appendix H. Court Authorized Interception Under State Law Arizona: Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§13-3010, 13 3017(p/t), 13-3016(s); Colorado: Colo.Rev.Stat. §§16-15-101 to 1615-104; Delaware: Del.Code tit.11 §1336 Oregon: Ore.Rev.Stat. §§139.721 to 133.739, 167. 657 to 167.673(p/t); Rhode Island: R.I.Gen.Laws 4412-5.1-1 to 12-5.1-16, 12-5.2-1 to 12-5.2-5(p/t); South Dakota: S.D.Cod.Laws §§23A-35A-1 to 23A-36A-19, 23A-35A-24 to 23A-35A-94; Utah: Utah Code Ann. §§77-23a-8 to 77-23a10, 77-23a-14(p/t), 77-23B-2 to 77-23B-9(s); Washington: Wash.Rev. Code Ann. $49.73.040 to 9.73.140, Wisconsin: Wis.Stat. Ann. #968.28 to 968.30, 968.35 to 968.37(p/t); California: Cal.Penal Code §629 to 629.48; Connecticut: Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. §§54-4la to 54-41t; Florida: Fla.Stat.Ann. §§934.08, 994.21 to 934.38(8), 934.82 to 934.34(p/t); Hawaii: Hawaii Rev.Stat. §§803-41 to 80347, 803-47.5 to 808-47.9(s); Illinois: Ill.Stat.Ann. ch.38 TT108A-1 to 108A-11, 108B-1 to 108B-14; Kansas: Kan.Stat.Ann. §§22-1574 to 222576; Maryland: Md.Cts. & Jud.Pro.Code Ann. $810-406 to 10-409, 10-4A-01 to 10-4A-08(s), 10-4B-01 to 10-4B-05(p/t); Minnesota: Minn.Stat.Ann. §§626A.05 to New Hampshire: N.H.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§570- North Carolina: N.C.Gen.Stat. §§15-260 to Oklahoma: Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 13 §§176.7 to 176.14, 177.1 to 177.5(p/t); Pennsylvania: Pa.Stat. Ann. tit.18 $45708 to 5724, 5741 to 5748(8), 6771 to 5775(p/t); South Carolina: S.C.Code §§17-29-10 to 1729-50(p/t), Texas: Tex.Crim.Pro. Code. #$18.20, 18.21 (a, p/t); Virginia: Va.Code §§19.2-68, 19.2-70.2(p/t), 19.2-70.3(s); West Virginia: W.Va.Code §62-1D-11; Wyoming: Wyo.Stat. §87-3-605, 7-9-607; District of Columbia: D.C.Code $823-546 to 23-556. 38 Citations with no designation indicate the statutory provisions for court approved interception orders; those with a (p/t) designation indicate the statutory provisions for court authorized used of pen registers and trap and trace devices; and those with a (s) designation indicate the statutory provisions for government access to stored electronic communications. Abramovsky, Surreptitious Recording of Witnesses in Criminal Cases: A Quest for Truth or a Violation of Law and Ethics?, 57 Tulane Law Review 1 (1982) Barnett & Makar, "In the Ordinary Course of Business": The Legal Limits of Workplace Wiretapping, 10 Hastings Journal of Communications and Entertainment Law 715 (1988) Brownell, The Public Security and Wire Tapping, 39 Cornell Law Quarterly 154 (1954) Carr, The Law of Electronic Surveillance (1989) Cinquegrana, The Walls (and Wires) Have Ears: The Background and First Ten Years of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 137 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 793 (1989). Donnelly, Comments and Caveats on the Wiretapping Controversy, 63 Yale Law Journal 799 (1954) Fein, Regulating the Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Radio, and Oral Communications: A Case Study of Federal Statutory Antiquation, 22 Harvard Journal of Legislaiton 47 (1985) Fishman, Technologically Enhanced Visual Surveillance the Fourth Amendment: Sophistication, Availability and the Expectation of Privacy, 26 American Criminal Law Review 315 (1989) Wiretapping and Eavesdropping (1978) & (Dec, 1989 Supp.) Goldsmith & Balmforth, The Electronic Surveillance of Privileged Communications: A Conflict of Doctrines, 64 South California Law Review 903 (1991) Hernandez, ECPA and Online Computer Privacy, 41 Federal Communications Law Journal 17 (1988) Kastenmeier, Leavy & Beier, Communications Privacy: A Legislative Perspective, 1989 Wisconsin Law Review 715 Meason, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Time for Reappraisal, 24 International Lawver 1043 (1990) |