Connecticut
Connecticut Phone Call Recording Laws: All-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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Connecticut requires all-party consent before recording any telephone call under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d, covering landlines, cell phones, and VoIP, though the statute is also satisfied by a recorded verbal notice at the start of the call or a repeating audible tone warning. A participant who records a call without satisfying one of those methods faces civil liability under 52-570d, damages plus costs and a reasonable attorney's fee, not criminal prosecution. The Class D felony eavesdropping charge under CGS 53a-189 applies only when someone who is neither a sender nor a receiver of the call intercepts it without either party's consent.
Connecticut is one of the strictest states in the nation when it comes to recording phone calls. While the state applies one-party consent to in-person conversations, telephone recordings require the consent of every person on the line under CGS 52-570d. This all-party consent requirement applies whether you are a participant in the call or a third party, and it covers landlines, cell phones, VoIP calls, and any other form of telephone communication.
Understanding these rules is essential for anyone who records business calls, documents disputes over the phone, or uses AI-powered transcription tools. Violating Connecticut's phone recording law as a participant carries civil penalties under CGS 52-570d; a non-participant who intercepts a call without either party's consent faces felony criminal prosecution as well.
CGS 52-570d: Connecticut's Telephone Recording Statute
CGS 52-570d is the primary statute governing telephone call recording in Connecticut. It prohibits any person from recording or causing to be recorded any telephone conversation unless specific consent requirements are met.
Three Ways to Obtain Lawful Consent
The statute provides three methods for legally recording a phone call in Connecticut.
Written consent from all parties, obtained before or at the start of the recording. This can take the form of a signed agreement, a consent clause in a service contract, or any other written documentation that clearly indicates all parties agree to have their telephone conversations recorded.
Verbal notification recorded at the beginning of the call by the party making the recording. The most common method is a verbal announcement at the start of the call, such as "This call is being recorded." Unlike the written-consent method, this method does not require the other parties to verbally respond or agree; CGS 52-570d only requires that the notification be recorded and be part of the communication.
Automatic warning tone that produces a distinct signal repeated at intervals of approximately every fifteen seconds during the recording. While this method remains legally valid, it has largely fallen out of use in favor of verbal announcements.
Broad Statutory Language Covers Modern Technology
CGS 52-570d has used the phrase "any instrument, device or equipment" since its original 1990 enactment (P.A. 90-305), and that language was never narrowed to specific hardware. It reaches:
- Smartphone call recording features and apps
- VoIP recording through platforms like Zoom, Skype, and Google Voice
- AI-powered transcription tools that join calls or analyze audio
- Cloud-based call recording and analytics services
- Traditional hardware recording devices
- Any future technology capable of capturing telephone audio
This broad, technology-neutral language leaves little room for an argument that newer technologies fall outside the statute's scope.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Recording
Eavesdropping as a Class D Felony
The Class D felony eavesdropping charge under CGS 53a-189 is built on the "wiretapping" definition in CGS 53a-187, which reaches a person recording a telephonic communication "other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver." Because a participant to the call is, by definition, a sender or receiver, a participant who records their own call without complying with CGS 52-570d does not commit criminal wiretapping; their exposure is civil, under 52-570d (below). The felony charge applies to a genuine third party, someone who is neither the sender nor the receiver, who intercepts the call without either party's consent. That offense carries:
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Prison | Up to 5 years |
| Fine | Up to $5,000 |
| Or both | Prison and fine combined |
Connecticut's felony classification for third-party wiretapping makes it one of the harsher states in the country for that conduct. Recording your own call without proper consent is a different matter: it exposes you to civil liability under CGS 52-570d, not criminal prosecution.
Relationship to Federal Law
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 requires at least one-party consent for recording communications. Connecticut's telephone recording requirement is stricter than the federal standard. A recording that complies with federal law (because one party consented) may still violate Connecticut law if all parties did not consent.
Civil Remedies for Victims
Damages Under CGS 52-570d
Any person whose telephone conversation is recorded without proper consent can sue in Connecticut Superior Court and recover:
- Actual damages resulting from the illegal recording
- Litigation costs incurred in bringing the action
- Attorney fees for legal representation
The statute does not cap these damages, meaning the total recovery depends on the actual harm suffered and the costs of litigation.
Inadmissibility of Illegal Recordings
Connecticut's general evidence statute, CGS 52-184a, separately provides that no evidence obtained illegally by the use of any electronic device is admissible in any Connecticut court. CGS 52-570d's own text does not itself set an admissibility rule; its stated remedy is the civil action for damages described above. Whether CGS 52-184a's exclusionary language reaches an ordinary CGS 52-570d violation, as opposed to a criminal wiretapping or eavesdropping violation under CGS 53a-187 to 53a-189, is not settled on the sourcing available here, and CGS 53a-187(b) separately limits the eavesdropping chapter's own effect on admissibility to prosecutions for eavesdropping itself.
Given that uncertainty, treat a phone call recorded without proper CGS 52-570d consent as carrying real evidentiary risk in a Connecticut proceeding, on top of the civil-liability exposure discussed above, rather than as reliably usable evidence.
Wiretapping Civil Remedies Under CGS 54-41r
CGS 54-41r provides a civil remedy, but it is keyed to violations of chapter 959a or of CGS 53a-187 to 53a-189 (the criminal wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes), not to CGS 52-570d. It does not add to the remedy for an ordinary participant who records a phone call without proper 52-570d consent, since a participant cannot violate 53a-187 to 53a-189 by recording their own call. Where it does apply, such as a non-participant illegally intercepting communications, victims may recover:
- Liquidated damages calculated at $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher
- Punitive damages at the court's discretion
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
Good faith reliance on a court order serves as a complete defense to both civil and criminal liability under this chapter.
Business Phone Call Recording Compliance
Required Disclosures
Connecticut businesses that record customer or client phone calls must provide clear notification before recording begins. The standard approach is an automated message at the start of the call: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes."
When the caller continues the conversation after hearing this announcement, their continued participation constitutes implied consent. The announcement must be:
- Clear and audible
- Played before any recording begins
- Specific enough that a reasonable person understands the call will be recorded
Employee Training
Businesses should train all employees who handle recorded phone calls on proper consent procedures. Staff should understand when and how to announce recording, what to do if a caller objects, and how to handle situations where recording must be paused or stopped.
Record Retention
Businesses should maintain records documenting their consent practices, including the text of automated announcements, the timing of when announcements play during the call flow, and any written consent obtained from customers through service agreements.
When a Caller Objects
If a caller objects to recording, the business must either stop recording and continue the call unrecorded, or offer the caller an alternative means of communication. Continuing to record after an explicit objection is a clear violation of CGS 52-570d.
Interstate Phone Calls
Which State's Law Applies
When a phone call crosses state lines, a conflict-of-law question arises. Connecticut courts have not issued a definitive ruling equivalent to California's Kearney decision, but general principles apply:
- Connecticut residents making calls from within the state are subject to CGS 52-570d regardless of where the other party is located
- A person in a one-party consent state who calls someone in Connecticut should follow Connecticut's stricter all-party consent rule to avoid liability
- Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 sets a minimum floor of one-party consent
Practical Guidance for Interstate Calls
The safest approach for anyone who regularly makes interstate calls involving Connecticut is to adopt an all-party consent policy for every call. This practice satisfies the requirements of every U.S. state and eliminates the need for a case-by-case legal analysis.
Businesses with customers in Connecticut should ensure their call recording disclosures play for every call, not just calls from Connecticut numbers. Cell phone users frequently call from different states, and a Connecticut resident may call from an out-of-state number.
Call Recording Apps and Technology
Smartphone Apps
Apps like TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, Cube ACR, and similar tools are legal to install in Connecticut. Using them to record phone calls without the consent of all parties is not. The "any instrument, device or equipment" language of CGS 52-570d explicitly covers these applications.
Auto-Record Features
Call recording apps that automatically capture every incoming and outgoing call pose particular risk in Connecticut. Because each call requires separate consent, an auto-record feature that captures calls without notification is almost certain to produce illegal recordings. Users of these apps in Connecticut should disable auto-record and obtain consent on a call-by-call basis.
VoIP and Video Calling
Calls made through VoIP platforms like Zoom, Skype, Google Voice, Microsoft Teams, and FaceTime are subject to the same all-party consent requirement. The fact that the call travels over the internet rather than a traditional phone line does not change the legal analysis.
Most major platforms provide a recording notification feature that alerts all participants when recording starts. While these platform notifications are helpful, they may not be sufficient standing alone. Best practice is to verbally announce the recording and confirm consent before starting.
AI Transcription and Meeting Tools
AI-powered tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and similar services that join phone calls or video calls to transcribe audio are covered by CGS 52-570d. These tools record telephone communications using an "instrument, device or equipment" within the meaning of CGS 52-570d and therefore require all-party consent. Using an AI transcription tool without notifying and obtaining consent from all parties on the call violates Connecticut law.
Employer Recording of Employee Phone Calls
Employer Obligations Under CGS 31-48d
Connecticut imposes specific requirements on employers who monitor employee phone calls. Under CGS 31-48d, employers must give prior written notice to employees before engaging in electronic monitoring, including phone call recording. The statute does not tie this notice to a specific point like hiring; it simply requires notice before monitoring begins.
Employers satisfy this notice requirement by posting a notice in a conspicuous location visible to employees describing the types of monitoring that may occur; CGS 31-48d's own text states that such posting constitutes the required prior written notice, so posting is a way to satisfy the single notice duty, not an additional obligation layered on top of a separate individual notice.
Penalties for Employer Violations
Employers who fail to comply with the monitoring notice requirements of CGS 31-48d face penalties of:
- $500 for the first offense
- $1,000 for the second offense
- $3,000 for each subsequent offense
These penalties are separate from any liability under CGS 52-570d for recording without consent.
Employee Phone Calls at Work
Even with proper monitoring notice under CGS 31-48d, the all-party consent requirement of CGS 52-570d still applies to the external party on the phone call. An employer cannot satisfy the telephone recording law by notifying only its own employees. The person on the other end of the call must also consent to the recording.
Recording Calls with Government Agencies
911 and Emergency Calls
Emergency responders and 911 operators record calls as part of their duties. Callers to emergency services are generally considered to have implied consent to recording given the public safety nature of the call.
Government Office Calls
When calling Connecticut state agencies, courts, or other government offices, the same rules apply. If the agency records calls, it must provide notice. Citizens who wish to record calls with government offices must obtain the consent of all parties on the line.
Law Enforcement Wiretapping
Court-Ordered Interception
Under Chapter 959a of the Connecticut General Statutes, law enforcement officers may intercept wire communications with a court order. Eligible officers include Connecticut State Police, Division of Criminal Justice inspectors, and municipal police officers assigned to statewide task forces.
Applications for interception orders must demonstrate probable cause and explain why other investigative methods have been tried and failed, or why they are reasonably unlikely to succeed.
Scope of Lawful Interception
Court-ordered wiretaps are narrowly tailored. The order specifies the communications to be intercepted, the duration of the intercept, and the particular offense being investigated. Officers who exceed the scope of the order risk having the intercepted evidence suppressed.
Common Phone Recording Scenarios
Recording a Dispute with a Business
If you are in a dispute with a company and want to record your phone conversations for documentation, you must inform the other party and obtain their consent before recording. Without consent, the recording violates CGS 52-570d, exposing you to civil liability and real evidentiary risk if you try to use it in a Connecticut court proceeding.
Recording Customer Service Calls
When you call a company that announces "this call may be recorded," that company has satisfied its consent obligation. However, you do not automatically have the right to make your own recording of the same call. If you wish to record on your end as well, you should announce your intention and obtain consent from the representative.
Recording Calls with Your Attorney
Calls between you and your attorney are privileged communications. While Connecticut's recording law does not provide a specific exemption for attorney-client calls, the all-party consent requirement still applies. If you wish to record a call with your lawyer, you need their agreement.
Recording Calls for a Business You Own
Small business owners who want to record customer calls for training, quality assurance, or dispute resolution must implement a consent procedure. An automated announcement at the beginning of the call is the most efficient approach for businesses that handle a high volume of calls.
More Connecticut 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 Connecticut Recording Laws
More Connecticut Recording Topics
More Connecticut Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Connecticut without telling the other person?
No, not without meeting one of the statute's methods. Connecticut requires all-party consent for telephone recordings under CGS 52-570d, satisfied by consent from every party, a recorded verbal notice at the start of the call, or a repeating audible tone warning. As a participant recording your own call, failing to do so exposes you to civil liability under 52-570d for actual damages, litigation costs, and attorney's fees, not criminal prosecution. The Class D felony eavesdropping charge under CGS 53a-189 is reserved for someone who is neither a sender nor a receiver of the call and intercepts it without either party's consent.
What is the difference between Connecticut's phone recording law and its in-person recording law?
Connecticut uses a mixed consent system. In-person, face-to-face conversations require only one-party consent: the criminal eavesdropping offense, CGS 53a-189, reaches only wiretapping or "mechanical overhearing of a conversation" as defined in CGS 53a-187, and a participant who is present and recording their own conversation falls outside that definition, meaning you can record a conversation you participate in without telling others. Telephone calls fall under CGS 52-570d, which is satisfied by consent from every party, a recorded verbal notice at the start of the call, or a repeating audible tone warning. This distinction makes Connecticut unique among U.S. states.
Does Connecticut's phone recording law apply to Zoom and video calls?
Yes. CGS 52-570d's 'any instrument, device or equipment' language has covered recording technology broadly since its 1990 enactment, and it reaches VoIP calls, Zoom meetings, FaceTime calls, Microsoft Teams sessions, and any other technology used for telephone or electronic voice communication. All-party consent is required before recording these calls.
Can a Connecticut business record customer phone calls?
Yes, with proper consent. Businesses must provide clear notice before recording begins, typically through an automated announcement like 'This call may be recorded.' When the caller continues the conversation after hearing the announcement, their continued participation constitutes implied consent. Businesses should also train staff on consent procedures and maintain documentation of their practices.
Can I use a secretly recorded phone call as evidence in Connecticut court?
It is risky. CGS 52-570d itself does not set an admissibility rule; its stated remedy is a civil action for damages. Connecticut's separate evidence statute, CGS 52-184a, bars evidence illegally obtained by an electronic device, but whether that reaches an ordinary 52-570d violation, as opposed to a criminal wiretapping or eavesdropping violation, is not settled here. Treat a recording made without proper consent as carrying real evidentiary risk, not as reliably usable evidence, regardless of how relevant it might be.
Updates
Corrected a blocking error that told readers recording their own Connecticut phone call without proper consent risks a felony charge; that felony (eavesdropping under CGS 53a-189) applies only to a non-participant who intercepts a call, while a participant's exposure is civil liability under CGS 52-570d. Also removed a fabricated 2012 statutory amendment, corrected an overstated blanket claim that any noncompliant recording is automatically inadmissible in every Connecticut proceeding, rescoped a misapplied civil-damages statute (CGS 54-41r), and fixed a fabricated 'notice at time of hiring' requirement in the employer-monitoring section.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the statutory basis for illegally recorded phone calls being inadmissible in court (it is Connecticut's general electronic-evidence statute, CGS 52-184a, not CGS 52-570d), and clarified that CGS 52-570d's verbal-notification consent method does not require the other parties on the call to verbally agree.
Completed the CGS 52-570d correction: the opening paragraph and two FAQ answers now reflect all three of the statute's compliance methods (consent, verbal notice, or tone warning) instead of implying every party must actively agree, matching the 'Three Ways to Obtain Lawful Consent' section already corrected on the page.
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.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 21 of our articles
(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
- Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
- State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 31 (Labor), Chapter 557
§ 31-48dEmployers engaged in electronic monitoring required to give prior notice to employees. Exceptions. Civil penalty.In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Employer” means any person, firm or corporation, including the state and any political subdivision of the state which has employees; (2) “Employee” means any person who performs services for an employer in a business of the employer, if the employer has the right to control and direct the person as to (A) the result to be accomplished by the services, and (B) the details and means by which such result is accomplished; and (3) “Electronic monitoring” means the collection of information on an employer's premises concerning employees' activities or communications by any means other than direct observation, including the use of a computer, telephone, wire, radio, camera, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photo-optical systems, but not including the collection of information (A) for security purposes in common areas of the employer's premises which are held out for use by the public, or (B) which is prohibited under state or federal law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Gerardi v. City of Bridgeport (2010) held that section 31-48d creates no private right of action, reading subsection (c) to delegate all enforcement of the electronic monitoring notice duty to the labor commissioner. J.P. Alexandre, LLC v. Egbuna (2012) cited that reading when rejecting an implied right of action under a tax statute.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gerardi v. City of Bridgeport (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2010, 294 Conn. 461)✓Bridgeport put GPS units in fire inspectors' city vehicles without telling them, then disciplined them; the Connecticut Supreme Court held section 31-48d creates no private right of action because subsection (c) leaves enforcement to the labor commissioner.
- Borelli v. Renaldi (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2020, 336 Conn. 1)“…(2010) (comparing electronic monitoring statute, General Statutes § 31-48d, to other employment statutes…”
- J.P. Alexandre, LLC v. Egbuna (Connecticut Appellate Court 2012, 137 Conn. App. 340)“…idgeport, supra, 294 Conn. 472 (rejecting claim that General Statutes § 31-48d [c] provided private right of action wh…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952
§ 53a-187Definitions. Applicability.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) The following definitions are applicable to sections 53a-188 and 53a-189: (1) “Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Connecticut courts read section 53a-187's definitions to reach only surreptitious, nonconsensual monitoring. State v. Grullon (1989) applied it to place one-party-consent recordings outside the eavesdropping statutes, and Washington v. Meachum (1996) held those statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is monitored.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Grullon (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1989, 212 Conn. 195)✓Police recorded the defendant's calls with his brother, who consented; the court held that replacing the older wiretap penal statute with section 53a-187, which reaches recording only when no party consents, gave no reason to exclude the transcripts.
- Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing nonprivileged collect calls to be monitored after posted signs, signed forms and a recurring tone; reading section 53a-187's consent-based definitions, the court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows.
- State v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 224 Conn. 593)✓Police used a scanner in a neighbor's apartment to record a couple's cordless phone calls; the court rejected the State's argument that a 1989 amendment adding cellular phones to section 53a-187's wiretapping definition left cordless calls unprotected, and ordered suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 53a-189Eavesdropping: Class D felony.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
(a) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation. (b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington v. Meachum (1996) held the eavesdropping statutes, section 53a-189 among them, are violated only when neither party to a call knows it is being monitored. State v. McLoughlin (1998), a trial court ruling on a scanner intercept, read 53a-189 to cover cordless calls, a question no Connecticut appellate court had decided.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. McLoughlin (Connecticut Superior Court 1998, 45 Conn. Super. Ct. 497)“…on. Subsequently, the defendant was charged in violation of General Statutes § 53a-189, eavesdropping, which is a class D felo…”
- Rado v. Board of Education of the Borough of Naugatuck (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1990, 216 Conn. 541)✓A tenured teacher acquitted of eavesdropping was fired after a panel found he tampered with the school phone system to overhear staff calls; the court treated that conduct as proscribed by section 53a-189 and upheld the moral-misconduct finding.
- Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing officials to monitor and record their nonprivileged phone calls; the Connecticut Supreme Court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is being monitored, so the noticed recording was lawful.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 54 (Criminal Procedure), Chapter 959a
§ 54-41rRemedies of party intercepted; defense.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter or of sections 53a-187 to 53a-189, inclusive, shall (1) have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication, and (2) be entitled to recover from any such person actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars per day for each day of violation or one thousand dollars, whichever is higher; punitive damages; and a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Brown (Connecticut Appellate Court 1988, 14 Conn. App. 605)“…and enabling him promptly to seek his civil remedies under General Statutes § 54-41r.” State v. Formica, supra, 482-83…”
- State v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 224 Conn. 593)“…ure or use of his unlawfully intercepted conversations. See General Statutes § 54-41r. 25 We do not believe that the legisla…”
- State v. Formica (Connecticut Appellate Court 1985, 3 Conn. App. 477)“…and enabling him promptly to seek his civil remedies under General Statutes § 54-41r. A strict reading of the inventory se…”
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
- Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d - Recording of Telephone Communications(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-187 - Eavesdropping Definitions(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-189 - Eavesdropping: Class D Felony(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-41r - Wiretapping Civil Remedies(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Conn. Gen. Stat. 31-48d - Employer Electronic Monitoring(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Chapter 959a - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance(cga.ct.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Law(uscode.house.gov).gov