California
California Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
California requires all parties to consent before recording any confidential conversation, under Cal. Penal Code 632. Violating this rule is a wobbler offense carrying up to one year in county jail as a misdemeanor or up to three years in state prison as a felony, with fines up to $2,500 per violation.
California has some of the strictest audio recording laws in the United States. As a two-party consent state, California requires that all parties to a confidential communication consent before any recording takes place. These rules are codified primarily in Penal Code Section 632 and related statutes within the California Invasion of Privacy Act (Penal Code Sections 630 through 638.55).
Understanding these laws is essential for individuals, businesses, journalists, and anyone who records conversations in California. The consequences of violating these statutes include criminal prosecution, significant fines, and civil lawsuits with statutory damages.
What Is Penal Code 632?
Penal Code 632 is the core statute governing audio recording in California. It makes it illegal to intentionally record or eavesdrop on any confidential communication without the consent of all parties involved. The statute applies whether the communication happens in person or over a telephone, telegraph, or other device.
The law specifically targets anyone who "intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication." This covers a broad range of devices, from dedicated recording equipment to smartphones and voice recorders.
What Counts as a "Confidential Communication"?
The definition of "confidential communication" is central to how Penal Code 632 works in practice. Under Section 632(c), a confidential communication is any communication "carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto."
The California Supreme Court clarified this definition in Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766 (2002). The Court held that a communication is confidential when the parties have an objectively reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being overheard or recorded. The focus is on whether someone could reasonably expect privacy in the moment, not whether they expected the contents to remain secret afterward.
A communication is not considered confidential if it occurs in a public gathering, in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in circumstances where the parties may reasonably expect the conversation could be overheard or recorded. A loud conversation in a crowded restaurant, for example, would generally not qualify as confidential.
What "Consent" Means Under the Law
California law requires consent from all parties to a communication before recording. Consent does not need to be written or even explicitly verbal in every case; courts have found implied consent, for example, when a caller stays on the line after hearing a recorded disclosure that the call may be monitored. The key requirement is that every party receives adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to end the conversation if they object; the methods businesses use to give that notice are covered below.
Penal Code 632.7: Cell Phone and Cordless Phone Recording
While Penal Code 632 focuses on "confidential" communications, Penal Code 632.7 provides broader protection specifically for wireless communications. This statute prohibits recording any communication transmitted between cellular phones, cordless phones, and landline phones without the consent of all parties, regardless of whether the communication is confidential.
This distinction became legally significant in the California Supreme Court's 2021 ruling in Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal.5th 183. In that case, LoanMe recorded a phone call after playing a short "beep" tone but never verbally advised the other person of the recording. The Court confirmed that Section 632.7 applies to parties to a call and not just third-party eavesdroppers. It also held that Section 632.7 does not require the communication to be "confidential" for the recording to be illegal.
The practical takeaway: recording any cell phone or cordless phone conversation without all-party consent is illegal in California, even if the call takes place in a public setting where confidentiality would not normally be expected.
Section 632.7 defines "communication" broadly to include voice, data, and image transmissions, including facsimile. The statute was last amended in 2022 (Stats. 2022, Ch. 27, effective January 1, 2023).
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
Violating California's audio recording laws carries serious criminal consequences. Penal Code 632 is classified as a wobbler offense, meaning prosecutors can charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the circumstances and the defendant's criminal history.
First Offense Penalties
As a misdemeanor:
- Up to one year in county jail
- A fine of up to $2,500
- Or both jail time and a fine
As a felony:
- 16 months, two years, or three years in state prison
- A fine of up to $2,500
- Or both imprisonment and a fine
Repeat Offense Penalties
If a person has a prior conviction under Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the penalties increase substantially:
- A fine of up to $10,000 per violation
- Up to one year in county jail (misdemeanor) or 16 months to three years in state prison (felony)
- Or both the enhanced fine and imprisonment
Each individual recording can constitute a separate violation, so a pattern of illegal recording can lead to multiple counts and compounding penalties. In the Flanagan v. Flanagan case, the jury awarded $5,000 for each of 24 illegally recorded calls, totaling $120,000 in statutory damages plus $1.2 million in punitive damages.
Penalties Under Section 632.7
The penalties for violating Section 632.7 (cell phone and cordless phone recording) mirror those of Section 632: up to $2,500 in fines and/or one year in county jail or state prison for a first offense, increasing to $10,000 in fines for repeat offenders.
Civil Remedies Under Penal Code 637.2
Beyond criminal prosecution, California provides a private right of action for victims of illegal recording. Penal Code 637.2 allows any person injured by a violation of the Invasion of Privacy Act to file a civil lawsuit and recover damages.
Available Damages
Injured parties may recover the greater of:
- $5,000 per violation, or
- Three times the amount of actual damages
No proof of actual damages is required to bring a claim. A plaintiff can recover the statutory minimum of $5,000 per violation even without demonstrating financial harm. Plaintiffs may also seek injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations.
These civil remedies exist independently of any criminal prosecution. A person can face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the same illegal recording. The statute was amended effective January 1, 2017, through AB 1671.
The Crime-Evidence Exception: Penal Code 633.5
Penal Code 633.5 creates an important exception to California's all-party consent requirement. It permits one party to a confidential communication to record the conversation without the other party's consent when the recording is made to gather evidence of certain serious crimes.
Qualifying Crimes
The exception applies when the recording party reasonably believes they are gathering evidence of:
- Extortion
- Kidnapping
- Bribery
- Any felony involving violence against a person, including human trafficking (Penal Code 236.1)
- Harassing phone calls (violations of Penal Code 653m)
- Domestic violence (as defined in Penal Code 13700)
Admissibility of Evidence
Recordings made under this exception are admissible in court for prosecutions of the listed crimes, as well as "any crime in connection therewith." The standard is a "reasonable belief" that criminal activity is occurring. The recording party does not need to prove the crime actually took place; a good-faith belief is sufficient.
Domestic Violence Recording (Penal Code 633.6)
California also provides a separate, related exception under Penal Code 633.6 specifically for domestic violence victims. This provision allows victims to record communications with their alleged abuser for the purpose of obtaining evidence to support a restraining order.
Business Call Recording Rules
Businesses that record phone calls with customers, clients, or partners face specific compliance requirements under California law. Failure to obtain proper consent before recording a business call can expose a company to both criminal liability and civil class action lawsuits.
How to Obtain Valid Consent
California businesses can satisfy the consent requirement through several methods:
- Automated announcement: Playing a pre-recorded message at the start of the call stating the call will be recorded (e.g., "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes"). If the caller stays on the line after hearing the announcement, courts generally treat this as implied consent.
- Verbal disclosure by the representative: Having the employee or agent verbally inform the caller that the conversation is being recorded and asking if they consent.
- Written consent: Obtaining advance written consent, such as through a terms of service agreement or privacy policy that discloses call recording practices.
Best Practices for Compliance
The safest approach is to provide a clear, upfront disclosure that recording is taking place and give the other party an opportunity to decline. Simply including a note in a privacy policy, without any real-time notice, may not satisfy the statute if the caller has no reason to know the call is being recorded at the time it occurs.
Businesses operating call centers should train employees on proper disclosure protocols. In Smith v. LoanMe, the trial court initially found that LoanMe's brief beep tone, played with no verbal disclosure, was itself adequate notice. The California Supreme Court never revisited that specific finding; it granted review on a narrower statutory question and held that Section 632.7 applies to parties on a call, not just outside eavesdroppers, and does not require the conversation to be confidential. That holding leaves a beep-only practice on uncertain legal footing, since it does nothing to establish that all parties actually consented to the recording.
Interstate Call Recording: When California Law Applies
A frequently litigated question arises when one party to a phone call is in California and the other party is in a state with less restrictive (one-party consent) recording laws. The California Supreme Court addressed this directly in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006).
The Kearney Ruling
In Kearney, employees at Salomon Smith Barney's Atlanta office recorded phone conversations with California clients without consent. Georgia, where the employees were located, is a one-party consent state. California clients sued, arguing that California's two-party consent law should apply.
The California Supreme Court ruled that California law applies to future recordings of phone conversations involving California residents, even when the recording takes place in a one-party consent state. The Court reasoned that California has a strong interest in protecting the privacy of its residents, and that interest outweighs the recording state's more permissive approach. In practice, this means anyone recording a call with a California resident, including businesses headquartered in one-party consent states, should get consent from all parties regardless of where the recording device is located.
Federal Law vs. California Law
Federal wiretap law, codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 2511, follows a one-party consent model. Under federal law, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one party to the conversation consents. This means a participant in a conversation can record it without informing the other parties.
California's two-party consent requirement is stricter than the federal baseline. This is permissible because federal law establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for privacy protections. States are free to impose greater restrictions than federal law requires but cannot allow less protection than the federal standard provides.
When California law and federal law conflict, the stricter standard (California's) applies to conversations occurring within or involving California. A recording that might be legal under federal law can still be illegal under California's Penal Code.
Exemptions and Special Circumstances
Several specific exemptions exist within the Invasion of Privacy Act that modify the general all-party consent rule:
Law Enforcement (Penal Code 633)
Authorized law enforcement officers may intercept and record communications as permitted under specific legal authority. This includes court-authorized wiretaps and recordings made in the course of lawful investigations.
Public Utility Workers
Employees of public utilities performing their service-related duties are exempt when their recording activities relate to the operation of communication services.
Correctional Facilities
Communications within correctional facilities using internal telephone systems are not subject to the all-party consent requirement. Inmates are typically informed that calls are monitored and recorded.
Hearing Aid Users
Individuals using hearing aids or similar devices due to hearing impairment are exempt from the statute when using their devices for their intended purpose.
Recording Police Officers in Public
California law, amended through SB 411 (2015), explicitly protects the right to photograph and record police officers performing their duties in public. The act of recording an officer in a public place, or from a location where the recorder has a right to be, does not constitute a violation of Penal Code Section 69 or Section 148 (resisting or obstructing an officer). However, the recording must not physically interfere with the officer's duties.
Recent and Pending Legislation (2025-2026)
California's recording laws continue to evolve as technology changes. Two notable bills in the 2025-2026 legislative session address emerging privacy concerns:
SB 690: Commercial Business Purpose Exemption
SB 690 would add a "commercial business purpose" exemption to the Invasion of Privacy Act, aimed mainly at routine website tracking technologies rather than person-to-person audio recording. The bill stalled in the Assembly in mid-2025 and carried over as a two-year bill. As of July 2026 it has cleared the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee with a unanimous do-pass recommendation and is headed to the Appropriations Committee next, with its retroactivity window now tied to a proposed January 1, 2027 operative date. It has not yet passed.
SB 1130: Wearable Recording Devices
SB 1130, introduced by Senator Eloise Reyes in February 2026, targets wearable recording devices such as smart glasses and body-mounted cameras. It would add Penal Code Sections 632.8 and 632.9 to require explicit consent before a wearable device records someone inside a place of business and to prohibit disabling, selling, or manufacturing devices that disable recording indicator lights. The Senate passed the bill on May 27, 2026, and the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee passed it on July 1, 2026, sending it to the Appropriations Committee. Violations would carry penalties consistent with other Invasion of Privacy Act provisions: up to $2,500 for a first offense and up to $10,000 for repeat offenders.
Neither bill has been signed into law yet, but SB 1130 is furthest along and worth watching for California businesses and wearable-device makers.
More California Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
← Back to California Recording Laws
More California Recording Topics
More California Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is California a one-party or two-party consent state for audio recording?
California is a two-party (all-party) consent state. Under Penal Code 632, recording any confidential communication requires the consent of every person involved in the conversation. This applies to both in-person conversations and telephone calls. The term two-party consent is somewhat misleading because if three or more people are part of the conversation, all of them need to consent.
Can I record a phone call in California without telling the other person?
No. California law prohibits recording phone calls without the consent of all parties. Penal Code 632 covers confidential phone conversations, and Penal Code 632.7 separately prohibits recording any cell phone or cordless phone conversation without consent, regardless of whether the call is confidential. The only exception is when recording to gather evidence of specific serious crimes under Penal Code 633.5.
What happens if I secretly record a conversation in California?
Secretly recording a confidential conversation in California is a wobbler offense. As a misdemeanor, it carries up to one year in county jail and a $2,500 fine. As a felony, it can result in 16 months to three years in state prison plus a $2,500 fine. The person who was recorded can also file a civil lawsuit and recover $5,000 per violation or three times their actual damages, whichever is greater.
Does California law apply if I record a call from another state?
Yes, in most circumstances. The California Supreme Court ruled in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) that California's two-party consent law applies to recordings of phone conversations involving California residents, even when the person doing the recording is located in a one-party consent state. Anyone recording a call with a California resident should obtain consent from all parties.
Can I record someone committing a crime in California without their consent?
Under certain conditions, yes. Penal Code 633.5 allows one party to a conversation to record without the other party's consent when the recording is made to gather evidence of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, felonies involving violence (including human trafficking), harassing phone calls, or domestic violence. The recorder needs a reasonable, good-faith belief that the other party is committing one of these specific crimes.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
California Penal Code
§ 632In forcecited in 39 of our articles
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 267 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kimmel v. Goland (1990) held the section 47(2) litigation privilege does not bar a damages claim under Section 632 for recording confidential conversations without consent. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) held a Section 632 violation is complete the moment the recording is made, whether or not it is disclosed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…f telephone conversations with defendants, an offense under Penal Code section 632. We noted that defendants alleged that…”
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome owners secretly taped phone calls with park management in anticipation of suing; the court held the section 47(2) litigation privilege did not bar the cross-complaint for damages under Penal Code section 632, since the injury came from recording, not publication.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843)✓A TV producer put a wireless microphone on the flight nurse treating a crash victim. No section 632 claim was before the court, but it called section 632 and the intrusion tort laws of general applicability and said the press may not eavesdrop in violation of section 632.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 632.7In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) Every person who, without the consent of all of the parties to a communication, intercepts or receives and intentionally records, or assists in the interception or reception and intentional recordation of, a communication transmitted between two cellular radio telephones, a cellular radio telephone and a landline telephone, two cordless telephones, a cordless telephone and a landline telephone, or a cordless telephone and a cellular radio telephone, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has been convicted previously of a violation of this section or of Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 67 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (California Supreme Court 2021, 276 Cal. Rptr. 3d 746)“…Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J. Under Penal Code section 632.7, subdivision (a) (hereinafter section 6…”
- People v. Chavez (California Court of Appeal 1996, 44 Cal. App. 4th 1144)“…Smith (5th Cir. 1992) 978 F.2d 171, 178 ; Pen. Code, § 632.7, subd. (c)(2).) The CI sought au…”
- Gruber v. Yelp Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2020)“…al courts have refused to dismiss or summarily adjudicate a Penal Code section 632.7 claim based merely on the fact that the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 633.5In forcecited in 8 of our articles
Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, or a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700. Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not render any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700, or any crime in connection therewith.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Baker (California Court of Appeal 1978, 88 Cal. App. 3d 115)“…ction 632. 3 . Appellant has overlooked Penal Code section 633.5, 4 which is dispositive of…”
- Malinowski v. Martin (California Court of Appeal 2024)“…se permitted under statutory exceptions to the Privacy Act (Pen. Code, §§ 633.5 and 633.6). In the published port…”
- Geragos v. Abelyan (California Court of Appeal 2023)“…matter pleaded.”].) The Geragos Parties next contend Penal Code section 633.5 exempts Kazarian’s recording from exclu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 637.2In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Any person who has been injured by a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the person who committed the violation for the greater of the following amounts: (1) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation. (2) Three times the amount of actual damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff. (b) Any person may, in accordance with Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 525) of Title 7 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bring an action to enjoin and restrain any violation of this chapter, and may in the same action seek damages as provided by subdivision (a). (c) It is not a necessary prerequisite to an action pursuant to this section that the plaintiff has suffered, or be threatened with, actual damages. (d) This section shall not be construed to affect Title 4 (commencing with Section 3425.1) of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Civil Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 103 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ribas v. Clark (1985) held the section 637.2 award accrues at the moment of the Privacy Act violation, so the Civil Code section 47 litigation privilege does not bar it, though damages flowing solely from privileged testimony fail. Kimmel v. Goland (1990) applied that reasoning to recordings made in anticipation of litigation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…asion of privacy and related torts as well as damages under Penal Code section 637.2, granting persons injured by eavesdropp…”
- Ribas v. Clark (California Supreme Court 1985, 38 Cal. 3d 355)✓A wife asked a third party to listen on an extension phone while she called her husband, and that listener later testified about it; the court held the judicial privilege barred damages from the testimony but not Section 637.2's fixed award, which accrues at the violation.
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome residents secretly taped calls with park management to gather evidence for a planned lawsuit; the court held the litigation privilege did not bar management's Section 637.2 claim, because the injury came from the recording itself and not from any publication.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- California Penal Code Section 632 - Eavesdropping on Confidential Communications(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code Section 632.7 - Recording Cellular and Cordless Phone Communications(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code Section 633.5 - Crime-Evidence Recording Exception(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code Section 637.2 - Civil Remedies for Privacy Violations(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Invasion of Privacy Act - Full Chapter (PC 630-638.55)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- SB 411 - Right to Record Police Officers (2015)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- SB 690 - Commercial Business Purpose Exemption (2025-2026)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- SB 1130 - Wearable Recording Device Privacy (2025-2026)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Flanagan v. Flanagan, 27 Cal.4th 766 (2002)(scocal.stanford.edu)
- Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 39 Cal.4th 95 (2006)(courtlistener.com)
- Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 11 Cal.5th 183 (2021)(supreme.courts.ca.gov).gov