(a)A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b)For the purposes of this section, “person” means an individual, business association, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or other legal entity, and an individual acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any government or subdivision thereof, whether federal, state, or local, but excludes an individual known by all parties to a confidential communication to be overhearing or recording the communication.
(c)For the purposes of this section, “confidential communication” means any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public
gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
(d)Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding.
(e)This section does not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees, or agents thereof, if the acts otherwise prohibited by this section are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the services and facilities of the public
utility, (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility.
(f)This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids and similar devices, by persons afflicted with impaired hearing, for the purpose of overcoming the impairment to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear.
Notes of Decisions
Marc Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co. Vicki Weed, 322 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 6× “California Penal Code § 632 both makes taping a confidential conversation a crime and limits the admissibility of illegally intercepted conversations.”
Safari Club Int'l v. Lawrence Rudolph, 862 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 8× “See Cal. Penal Code § 632 . Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Rudolph from introducing the Whipple Video into evidence in the Pennsylvania and Wyoming actions, and the state court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on December 20, 2013.”
John Faulkner v. Adt Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Cal.Penal Code § 632. The case was later removed by the defendant to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on diversity grounds.”
Warden v. Kahn, 99 Cal. App. 3d 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 6× “" (Pen. Code, § 632, subd. (c).) They argue broadly that an attorney should have no basis for expecting that his consultation with a client will be secret or confidential, and they point to the fact that the attorney-client evidentiary privilege exists for the benefit of the…”
Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 214 F. Supp. 3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 7× “for Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Acts by all plaintiffs against all defendants; (8) Fraudulent Misrepresentation by PPFA, PPGC, PPCFC, and PPRM Against Da-leiden, Merritt, Lopez, CMP, BioMax, and Unknown Co-Conspirators; (9) Violation Of California Penal Code § 632 by PPFA,…”
Wilkins v. Nat'l Broad. Co., 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3194 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 5× “1 They alleged causes of action for (1) physical intrusion on solitude or into private affairs (intrusion); (2) fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; (3) conspiracy to commit and intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5)…”
Safari Club Int'l v. Lawrence Rudolph, 845 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 7× “See Cal. Penal Code § 632 . Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Rudolph from introducing the Whipple Video into evidence in the Pennsylvania and Wyoming actions, and the state court issued a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) on December 20, 2013.”
Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1933 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code section 632 does not prohibit the disclosure of information gathered in violation of its terms.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 632(a) — 19 cases
John Faulkner v. Adt Sec. Servs., Inc., 706 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2013).
“Cal.Penal Code § 632. The case was later removed by the defendant to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on diversity grounds.”
Marc Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co. Vicki Weed, 322 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 2003).
“California Penal Code § 632 both makes taping a confidential conversation a crime and limits the admissibility of illegally intercepted conversations.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 632(b) — 2 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 632(c) — 10 cases
— Cal. Penal Code § 632(d) — 2 cases
Marc Feldman v. Allstate Ins. Co. Vicki Weed, 322 F.3d 660 (9th Cir. 2003).
“California Penal Code § 632 both makes taping a confidential conversation a crime and limits the admissibility of illegally intercepted conversations.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 632(e) — 2 cases
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.