Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 11.60.280 (2026)
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1968–1975 · leading case: Roberts v. State, 453 P.2d 898 (Alaska 1969).
Roberts v. State, 453 P.2d 898 (Alaska 1969). “Marine’s interception of the telephone conversation on the morning of January 5, 1967, was in fact an “inadvertent interception of telephone conversations over party lines” and was therefore removed from the reach of AS 11.60.280’s prohibitions. We are of the further view that…”
Fuller v. State, 437 P.2d 772 (Alaska 1968). “AS 11.60.280, like the Federal Communications Act, makes it unlawful for one receiving or transmitting a communication by wire or radio to divulge the communication, except in enumerated instances.”
J. M. A. v. State, 542 P.2d 170 (Alaska 1975). “Put another way, the incentive to make a search under the circumstances here involved would not be lessened because of the likelihood that the evidence would be suppressed. In short, the primary purpose to be served by the exclusionary rule would not be served by its application…”
JMA v. State, 542 P.2d 170 (Alaska 1975). “Put another way, the incentive to make a search under the circumstances here involved would not be lessened because of the likelihood that the evidence would be suppressed. In short, the primary purpose to be served by the exclusionary rule would not be served by its application…”
Alaska Stat. § 11.60.280(b): 3 cases
Roberts v. State, 453 P.2d 898 (Alaska 1969). “Marine’s interception of the telephone conversation on the morning of January 5, 1967, was in fact an “inadvertent interception of telephone conversations over party lines” and was therefore removed from the reach of AS 11.60.280’s prohibitions. We are of the further view that…”
J. M. A. v. State, 542 P.2d 170 (Alaska 1975). “Put another way, the incentive to make a search under the circumstances here involved would not be lessened because of the likelihood that the evidence would be suppressed. In short, the primary purpose to be served by the exclusionary rule would not be served by its application…”
JMA v. State, 542 P.2d 170 (Alaska 1975). “Put another way, the incentive to make a search under the circumstances here involved would not be lessened because of the likelihood that the evidence would be suppressed. In short, the primary purpose to be served by the exclusionary rule would not be served by its application…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.