Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 (2026)

Eavesdropping

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 42.20.310. Eavesdropping.
 (a) A person may not
     (1) use an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or any part of an oral conversation without the consent of a party to the conversation;

     (2) use or divulge any information which the person knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the illegal use of an eavesdropping device for personal benefit or another's benefit;

     (3) publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of any conversation the person has heard through the illegal use of an eavesdropping device;

     (4) divulge, or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of any conversation the person has become acquainted with after the person knows or reasonably should know that the conversation and the information contained in the conversation was obtained through the illegal use of an eavesdropping device.

 (b) In this section “eavesdropping device” means any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation whether the conversation is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means; provided that this definition does not include devices used for the restoration of the deaf or hard-of-hearing to normal or partial hearing.




Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1990–2012 · leading case: Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Alaska Stat. Ann. § 42.20.310 ; Ark.Code Ann.”
People v. Rivera, 792 P.2d 786 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “Code § 13A-11-30 (1975); Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 (1989); Ariz. Rev.”
Locke v. Aston, M.D., 31 A.D.3d 33 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). “18 USC § 2511 [2] [d]; Alaska Stat § 42.20.310; Ohio Rev Code Ann § 2933.”
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.