Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another
party to the communication of the crime of extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, or a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700. Sections 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, and 632.7 do not render any evidence so obtained inadmissible in a prosecution for extortion, kidnapping, bribery, any felony involving violence against the person, including, but not limited to, human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1, a violation of Section 653m, or domestic violence as defined in Section 13700, or any crime in connection therewith.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
McLellan v. State, 182 P.3d 106 (Nev. 2008).
McLellan v. State, 182 P.3d 106 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 2× “7 Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 (2008); see also People v.”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Code §§ 5-60-120(a) & (c) (2005); Cal.Penal Code § 633.5 (1999); Colo.Rev.Stat.”
Perry v. Maryland, 741 A.2d 1162 (Md. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Cal.Penal Code § 633.5; Bast, supra, at 927 app.”
People v. Rivera, 792 P.2d 786 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-3005 (1989); Cal.Penal Code § 633.5 (West 1989); Conn.”
Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. for Med. Progress, 214 F. Supp. 3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2016).
“Second, Merritt argues that she cannot be liable for violations of California Penal Code section 632 and trespass to effect an illegal recording under Section 634 because she is exempt from liability under Section 633.”
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 349 N.E.2d 337 (Mass. 1976).
“” 5 See also Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 (Deering 1971), which provides that “[n]othing in Section .”
People v. Montgomery, 61 Cal. App. 3d 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
“Additionally, Penal Code section 633.5 would have permitted Clement to record the conversations himself if he reasonably believed the defendant would attempt to bribe him.”
People v. Baker, 88 Cal. App. 3d 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978).
“” 4 Penal Code section 633.5 provides in pertinent part: “Nothing in Section 631 or 632 shall be construed as prohibiting one party to a confidential communication from recording such communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the…”
People v. Henderson, 220 Cal. App. 3d 1632 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
“2d 423 ]); where one party to a conversation records it as evidence of crime related to extortion, kidnapping, bribery or any violent felony (Pen. Code, § 633.5); where a jailhouse conversation or telephone conversation between detainees and visitors is secretly monitored for…”
Lubetzky v. State Bar, 815 P.2d 341 (Cal. 1991).
“Although Penal Code section 632 makes the recording of a confidential telephone conversation without the consent of all parties a criminal offense, Penal Code section 633.5 exempts from the sweep of the statute an undisclosed recording by one of the parties of a conversation…”
Miller v. State, 411 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).
“Cal. Penal Code § 633.5 ; People v. Ayers, 51 Cal.”
Geragos v. Abelyan, 88 Cal. App. 5th 1005 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “5 provides that 31 section 632 does “not prohibit one party to a confidential communication from recording the communication for the purpose of obtaining evidence reasonably believed to relate to the commission by another party to the communication of the crime of extortion,…”
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.