(a)Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 prohibits the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy, or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any peace officer of the Office of Internal Affairs of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff regularly employed
and paid in that capacity by a county, police officer of the County of Los Angeles, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to January 1, 1968.
(b)Nothing in Section 631, 632, 632.5, 632.6, or 632.7 renders inadmissible any evidence obtained by the above-named persons by means of overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to January 1, 1968.
Notes of Decisions
North v. Superior Court, 502 P.2d 1305 (Cal. 1972).
· cites it 2× “" (Pen. Code, § 633.) Since pre-1967 law did not forbid officers from eavesdropping upon or recording communications between a person in legal custody and his spouse (see former Pen.”
Telish v. Cal. State Pers. Bd., 234 Cal. App. 4th 1479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015).
“(Pen. Code, § 633.) 2 Further, section 633 does not limit the use of duly recorded communications to criminal proceedings.”
Kopko v. Miller, 892 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2006).
“cal. penal code § 633 (2005). This section appears to include only sheriffs who are paid by the county or by a county police officer.”
Sacramento Cnty. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n v. Cnty. of Sacramento, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1468 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Assuming for the sake of argument that confidential communications were recorded within the meaning of the statutes (a point disputed by the parties), Penal Code section 633 13 provides that law enforcement officials, acting in that capacity, may record confidential…”
People v. Ayers, 51 Cal. App. 3d 370 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 2× “The four tapes recorded without police authorization contained only conversations with defendant Ayers. Yet both defendants claim error in their admission.”
People v. Howard, 55 Cal. App. 3d 373 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
“to learn the contents or meaning of any message ... or who uses, or attempts to use .”
People v. Jones, 30 Cal. App. 3d 852 (Cal. Ct. App. 1973).
“” Penal Code section 633 qualifies section 631: “Nothing in Section 631 .”
People v. Velasquez, 54 Cal. App. 3d 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976).
“I Defendant claims that evidence of the phone calls from Miss Caico to Mrs. Hansen should not have been admitted.”
People v. Blair, 2 Cal. App. 3d 249 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969).
“Although the defendant indicated to his brother that the room where they conversed was an attorney’s room, arguably implying their conversation would not be recorded, his brother is not challenging the admission of the tape recording.”
Rattray v. City of Nat'l City, 36 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Conclusion In sum, we reverse the district court’s disposition of Rattray’s invasion of privacy claim, as the defendants in this ease are not shielded by either California Penal Code § 633 or California Government Code §§ 815.”
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.