A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either:
1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof.
2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion.
3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do.
B. Except as provided in sections 13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
State v. Morrison, 56 P.3d 63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Morrison, 56 P.3d 63 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 7× “ANALYSIS ¶ 4 Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the audiotape of the sexually explicit telephone conversation between himself and G because it was made without his or her consent in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3005 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and…”
State of Arizona v. Dale Shawn Hausner, 280 P.3d 604 (Ariz. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-3005. Upon proper application, however, a judge may issue an ex pai’te order authorizing an interception pursuant to A.”
State v. Hauss, 688 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “119 of Title 18 of the United States Code and A.R.S. § 13-3005; (3) the taping of the conversation violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to remain silent and to be free from self-incrimination, and (4) the taping violated his right to confrontation as guaranteed by…”
People v. Rivera, 792 P.2d 786 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 2× “310 (1989); Ariz. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-3005 (1989); Cal.”
State v. Allgood, 831 P.2d 1290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “) See also A.R.S. § 13-3005. (penalizing as a class 5 felony interceptions effected "without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof.”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
“1995); Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3005, 13-3006 (West 1989) (limiting criminal disclosure liability to telecommunications employees and those acting in concert with them); Cal.”
James 306791 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2023).
“§ 13-3005. Moreover, neither the victim nor 20 her parents ever challenged the use of confrontation call evidence at trial, further implying 21 their consent.”
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.