Idaho
Idaho Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Idaho is a one-party consent state. Under Idaho Code 18-6702, you can record any phone call you participate in without notifying the other party. This rule covers landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. Recording a call you are not part of without consent is a felony.
Idaho's one-party consent law makes it straightforward to record phone calls. Under Idaho Code 18-6702, you can legally record any phone call you participate in without telling the person on the other end. This applies to calls made on landlines, cell phones, VoIP platforms, and any other communication technology that transmits voice.
This page covers the complete legal framework for recording phone calls in Idaho, including what types of calls are covered, how the law applies to interstate calls, business call recording practices, how recorded calls work as evidence, and the penalties for illegal phone call interception.
Idaho Code 18-6702 and Phone Calls
The One-Party Consent Rule
Idaho Code 18-6702 prohibits the willful interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications, but provides an exception when at least one party to the communication has given consent. For phone calls, this means:
- If you are on the call, you can record it. Your own participation satisfies the consent requirement.
- You do not need to tell the other person you are recording.
- You do not need to play a beep tone or any other notification sound.
- The rule applies regardless of who initiated the call.
Types of Calls Covered
Idaho Code 18-6701 defines the communications protected by the statute. For phone calls, two definitions are most relevant:
Wire communication covers any aural transfer made through wire, cable, or similar connections. This includes traditional landline telephone calls and the wired portions of cellular call routing.
Electronic communication covers transfers of signs, signals, sounds, or data transmitted by wire, radio, electromagnetic, or photoelectronic systems. This encompasses VoIP calls, video calls, and internet-based voice communications.
Together, these definitions cover virtually every type of phone call available today:
- Traditional landline calls
- Cell phone to cell phone calls
- Cell phone to landline calls
- VoIP calls (Skype, Google Voice, WhatsApp calls)
- Video conferencing calls (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Webex)
- Calls through internet-based messaging apps (Signal, Telegram voice calls)
- Calls through satellite phones
Recording Your Own Phone Calls

Personal Calls
You can record personal phone calls in Idaho for any lawful purpose. Common reasons include:
- Keeping a record of important conversations with service providers
- Documenting verbal agreements or promises
- Recording calls with government agencies for your records
- Preserving conversations related to legal disputes
- Keeping notes from calls with medical providers or insurance companies
How to Record Phone Calls
Several methods are available for recording phone calls in Idaho:
Smartphone apps. Apps like TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, and Cube ACR can record both incoming and outgoing calls on most smartphones. Some apps require a three-way calling feature from your carrier.
Built-in phone features. Some Android phones have built-in call recording features. Google's Phone app supports call recording in many regions. iPhone does not natively support call recording.
Dedicated recording devices. Hardware devices that connect between your phone and a recording device can capture calls on landlines. For cell phones, Bluetooth recording adapters are available.
VoIP platform features. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and similar platforms have built-in recording features. Note that some platforms notify all participants when recording begins, regardless of your state's consent requirements.
Standalone voice recorders. If you put a call on speakerphone, you can use a separate voice recorder to capture the audio. This is a simple method that works with any type of phone.
Interstate Phone Call Recording

The Conflict-of-Law Problem
Phone calls frequently cross state lines, and different states have different consent requirements. Idaho's one-party consent law may not protect you when the person you are calling is in a state that requires all-party consent.
Two-Party Consent States
The following states require all parties to consent before a phone call can be recorded:
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 (phone calls) |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704 |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 |
Which State's Law Applies?
There is no uniform national rule for determining which state's law applies to interstate phone call recording. Different courts have reached different conclusions:
The stricter law approach. Some courts, most notably the California Supreme Court in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (2006), have held that the stricter state's law applies. Under this approach, if you are in Idaho calling someone in California, California's all-party consent requirement would apply.
The location-of-recording approach. Other courts have focused on where the recording was made. Under this approach, Idaho law would apply to calls recorded in Idaho.
The federal floor approach. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 follows one-party consent, and some argue this standard preempts stricter state laws for interstate calls. However, most courts have rejected this argument.
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
The safest approach is to inform all parties that the call is being recorded when you know or suspect the other party is in a two-party consent state. A simple statement like "I would like to record this call for my records. Is that okay?" eliminates any conflict-of-law risk.
Business Phone Call Recording in Idaho

Legal Framework for Businesses
Idaho businesses can record phone calls under the one-party consent rule as long as at least one employee who is party to the call has consented. This provides a legal basis for recording customer service calls, sales calls, and internal business calls.
Common Business Uses
Businesses record calls for several legitimate purposes:
- Quality assurance. Monitoring and reviewing customer service interactions to maintain standards
- Training. Using recorded calls as training materials for new employees
- Compliance. Documenting verbal agreements, regulatory disclosures, and transaction authorizations
- Dispute resolution. Preserving records of what was said during business transactions
- Legal protection. Maintaining evidence of contractual commitments and customer instructions
Notice Practices for Businesses
While Idaho law only requires one-party consent, many businesses choose to notify callers that their calls may be recorded. This is a best practice for several reasons:
Interstate compliance. If any callers are in two-party consent states, providing notice ensures compliance with the stricter requirements.
Customer trust. Transparency about recording builds customer confidence and reduces complaints.
Legal clarity. Notice and continued participation by the caller creates an implied consent record that is stronger than relying solely on one-party consent.
Common notification methods include:
- Automated pre-call announcements: "This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes."
- Verbal disclosure by the representative at the start of the call
- Written disclosure in contracts, terms of service, or privacy policies (as a supplement to real-time notice, not a replacement)
Call Center Compliance
Idaho businesses operating call centers should implement recording policies that address:
- Which calls are recorded (all calls, random sample, specific departments)
- How recordings are stored and for how long
- Who has access to recordings
- How recordings are used in employee evaluations
- Compliance with state laws of the jurisdictions they serve
- Data security and breach notification requirements
Third-Party Call Recording
When Someone Else Records Your Call
Under Idaho's one-party consent law, the other person on your call can record it without telling you, just as you can record them. If both parties are in Idaho, either party's consent is sufficient.
Conference Calls and Multi-Party Calls
For conference calls with multiple participants, only one person needs to consent to the recording. If you are on a conference call with five other people and you record it, the recording is legal under Idaho law because you (one party) have consented.
However, if any participants are in two-party consent states, the analysis becomes more complex. The safest approach for multi-party calls is to announce at the start that the call is being recorded and allow anyone who objects to disconnect.
Recording on Behalf of Someone Else
You can record a phone call on behalf of another person if that person is a party to the call and has consented. For example, if your attorney asks you to record a phone call with an opposing party and you are on the call, the recording is legal because you (a party) have consented.
Phone Call Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in Idaho Courts
Phone call recordings made legally under Idaho's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in Idaho courts. The offering party must establish:
Authentication. The recording must be shown to be genuine and unaltered. This typically requires testimony from the person who made the recording about how and when it was captured.
Relevance. The recording must relate to the issues in the case.
Compliance with the rules of evidence. The recording must not be excludable under hearsay rules (though many exceptions apply) or under Idaho Rule of Evidence 403 (unfair prejudice substantially outweighing probative value).
Types of Cases Where Phone Recordings Are Used
Phone call recordings are commonly used as evidence in:
- Contract disputes. Proving the terms of a verbal agreement
- Family law cases. Documenting threats, harassment, or custody-related discussions
- Employment disputes. Recording conversations about wages, termination, or workplace conditions
- Consumer protection cases. Documenting misleading representations by businesses
- Criminal cases. Recording threats, harassment, or admissions
- Insurance claims. Preserving statements about incidents, injuries, or coverage
Preserving Phone Recordings for Evidence
To maximize the evidentiary value of phone recordings:
- Save the original recording file with metadata intact (date, time, duration)
- Do not edit, trim, or alter the recording
- Make backup copies stored in separate locations
- Note the phone numbers, names of participants, and purpose of the call
- Keep a log of when and how the recording was made
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Penalties
Under Idaho Code 18-6702, willfully intercepting phone calls without proper consent is a felony:
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Prison time | Up to 5 years |
| Fine | Up to $5,000 |
This applies to wiretapping (intercepting calls between other people), using electronic devices to eavesdrop on phone conversations, and hacking into phone systems or voicemail.
Civil Liability
Under Idaho Code 18-6709, victims of illegal phone call interception can file a civil lawsuit and recover:
- Actual damages
- Statutory damages of $100 per day (minimum $1,000)
- Punitive damages
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
Federal Penalties
Illegal phone call interception also violates federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511. Federal penalties include up to 5 years in prison and fines. The federal civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. 2520 allows victims to recover statutory damages of $10,000 or actual damages (whichever is greater), plus attorney fees.
Special Situations
Recording Government Agencies
You can record phone calls with Idaho state agencies, federal agencies, local government offices, and other government entities. As a participant in the call, your consent is sufficient under Idaho law. Recording these calls can be useful for preserving records of benefit determinations, complaint filings, permit discussions, and other government interactions.
Recording Debt Collectors
You can record calls from debt collectors in Idaho. In addition to providing personal documentation, these recordings may help identify violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692) or Idaho's collection practices regulations.
Recording Insurance Companies
Recording calls with insurance companies can preserve important records about claim handling, coverage determinations, and settlement discussions. As a party to the call, you can record these conversations under Idaho's one-party consent law.
Recording Attorney Calls
You can record phone calls with your own attorney if you are a participant. However, be cautious about recording calls involving attorney-client privileged information belonging to other parties, as this could create admissibility issues in litigation.
Idaho Recording Law Sub-Topics
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
More Idaho Recording Topics
More Idaho Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Idaho without telling the other person?
Yes. Idaho is a one-party consent state under Idaho Code 18-6702. As a participant in the phone call, your own consent satisfies the legal requirement. You do not need to inform the other person, play a beep tone, or get their permission before recording.
Is it legal to record a Zoom or Teams call in Idaho?
Yes. VoIP and video conferencing platforms are covered under Idaho's definitions of wire and electronic communications in Idaho Code 18-6701. As a participant, you can record the call. Be aware that some platforms have built-in notifications that may alert other participants when recording begins.
What if I record a call with someone in California while I am in Idaho?
California requires all-party consent, and its courts have applied California law to calls involving California residents even when the recording is made in another state. The safest approach is to inform the California caller and obtain their consent before recording.
Can a business record customer phone calls in Idaho?
Yes. Idaho businesses can record calls under the one-party consent rule as long as at least one employee on the call has consented. Many businesses also provide notice to callers through automated announcements as a best practice for interstate compliance and customer trust.
Can a recorded phone call be used as evidence in Idaho court?
Yes. Phone call recordings made legally under Idaho's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence. The recording must be authenticated, relevant, and compliant with the rules of evidence. Keep the original file unaltered and preserve metadata to strengthen admissibility.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Idaho Code
§ 18-6702Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
18-6702. Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited. (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person shall be guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed five (5) years or by a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Idaho courts have applied section 18-6702 to intercepted phone calls. Hoskins v. Howard (1998) held cordless telephone conversations are protected wire communications, so scanning, recording and disclosing one supported a claim. Chapman v. NYK Line North America (2009) noted 18-6702(2)(d) makes one-party-consent recording lawful.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hoskins v. Howard (Idaho Supreme Court 1998, 132 Idaho 311)✓A sheriff's deputy used a scanner to record a neighbor's cordless call and passed the tape on; the court held such calls are protected wire communications when part of the call crosses the phone network, so Section 18-6702 reached him, and vacated summary judgment in his favor.
- Chapman v. NYK LINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. (Idaho Supreme Court 2009, 147 Idaho 178)“…rsation with the consent of one party to the conversation. Idaho Code § 18-6702 (2)(d). Of course, an employer could im…”
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…16-11-66.1 (1996); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 (1993); Idaho Code § 18-6702 (1997); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, § 5…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 18-6701Definitions. Definitions as used in this chapter:In forcecited in 5 of our articles
18-6701. Definitions. Definitions as used in this chapter: (1) "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hoskins v. Howard (Idaho Supreme Court 1998, 132 Idaho 311)“…and recovery of reasonable attorney fees. I.C. § 18-6709. Idaho Code § 18-6701 provides the following definitions:…”
- Chapman v. NYK LINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. (Idaho Supreme Court 2009, 147 Idaho 178)“…erviews between them. Idaho’s Communications Security Act, Idaho Code §§ 18-6701 to 6725, specifically declares it to b…”
- Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…Hawaii v. Graham, 780 P.2d 1103, 1110 (Haw. 1989) Idaho: Idaho Code Ann. §§ 18-6701(2), 18-6702(1)(a), (2)(d) Illinois: 720…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 18-6709Recovery of civil damages authorized. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:In forcecited in 14 of our articles
18-6709. Recovery of civil damages authorized. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures any other person to intercept,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 51 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) 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:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 41 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 15
§ 1692Congressional findings and declaration of purposeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy. Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers. Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection of debts. Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce. It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 6,921 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (Supreme Court of the United States 2013, 568 U.S. 371)“…sive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. See 15 U. S. C. § 1692 . The FDCPA’s private-enforcement provi…”
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A. (Supreme Court of the United States 2010, 559 U.S. 573)“…il 21, 2010 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U. S. C. §1692 et seq., imposes civil liability on “…”
- William C. Lewis v. Acb Business Services, Inc., (96-3093/3498), American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. James P. Connors, (96-3498) (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998, 135 F.3d 389)“…anguage of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 -1692o, requires us to reverse the judg…”
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.
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
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
- Idaho Code 18-6702 - Interception and Disclosure of Communications(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 18-6701 - Definitions for Communications Security(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 18-6709 - Civil Remedies for Illegal Interception(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Statute(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 - Federal Civil Remedies(law.cornell.edu)
- 15 U.S.C. 1692 - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act(law.cornell.edu)