The Legislature hereby declares that advances in science and technology have led to the development of new devices and techniques for the purpose of eavesdropping upon private communications and that the invasion of privacy resulting from the continual and increasing use of such devices and techniques has created a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties and cannot be tolerated in a free and civilized society.
The Legislature by this chapter intends to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state.
The Legislature recognizes that law enforcement agencies have a legitimate need to employ modern listening devices and techniques in the investigation of criminal conduct and the apprehension of lawbreakers. Therefore, it is not the intent of the Legislature to place greater restraints on the use of listening devices and techniques by law enforcement agencies than existed prior to the effective date of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 3× “, 2 and the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 630 et seq. They also alleged that it amounted to an unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practice under the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal.”
Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal. App. 3d 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 8× “Our conclusion is that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the second amended complaint or the first amended complaint as to defendants other than Melvin Kahn, but that the first amended complaint stated a cause of action against defendant Melvin Kahn under…”
In re Yahoo Mail Litig., 7 F. Supp. 3d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 2× “California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) Plaintiffs bring a cause of action under CIPA, CaLPenal Code § 630, et seq. *1036 CIPA is California’s anti-wiretapping and anti-eavesdropping statute that prohibits unauthorized interceptions of communications in order “to protect…”
Ribas v. Clark, 696 P.2d 637 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 2× “.." [2] In enacting this statute, the Legislature declared in broad terms its intent "to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state" from what it perceived as "a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties [that] cannot be tolerated in a free and…”
Smith v. LoanMe, Inc., 483 P.3d 869 (Cal. 2021).
““In enacting [the Invasion of Privacy Act], the Legislature declared in broad terms its intent ‘to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state’ from what it perceived as ‘a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties [that] cannot be tolerated in a…”
Santa Ana Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Santa Ana, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 919 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017).
· cites it 2× “In the first cause of action, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code section 630 et seq., by using the video recordings made at the marijuana dispensary as the basis for, and as evidence in, the internal affairs…”
People v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 4× “In this appeal, we are asked for the first time to decide whether the surreptitious videotaping of sexual activity violates California's privacy statutes, Penal Code sections 630 and 632. The trial court overruled defendant's demurrer and a jury convicted defendant.”
Flanagan v. Flanagan, 41 P.3d 575 (Cal. 2002).
“’ (Pen. Code, § 630.) This philosophy appears to lie at the heart of virtually all the decisions construing the Privacy Act.”
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. v. Victor, 43 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 3× “He alleges claims for violations of: (1) the Wiretap Act; (2) the SCA; (3) California Penal Code § 502 et seq.; (4) California Penal Code § 630 et seq.”
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.