(a)Every person who, without permission from all parties to the conversation, eavesdrops on or records, by means of an electronic device, a conversation, or any portion thereof, between a person who is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer, or who is on the property of a law enforcement agency or other public agency, and that person’s attorney, religious adviser, or licensed physician, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b)Every person who, intentionally and without permission from all parties to the conversation, nonelectronically eavesdrops upon a conversation, or any portion thereof,
that occurs between a person who is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer or other public officer and that person’s attorney, religious adviser, or licensed physician, is guilty of a public offense. This subdivision applies to conversations that occur in a place, and under circumstances, where there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy, including a custody holding area, holding area, or anteroom. This subdivision does not apply to conversations that are inadvertently overheard or that take place in a courtroom or other room used for adjudicatory proceedings. A person who is convicted of violating this subdivision shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170, or in a county jail for a term not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c)This section shall not apply to any employee of a public utility
engaged in the business of providing service and facilities for telephone or telegraph communications while engaged in the construction, maintenance, conduct, or operation of the service or facilities of that public utility who listens in to conversations for the limited purpose of testing or servicing equipment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1972–2025 · leading case:
Barber v. Mun. Court, 598 P.2d 818 (Cal. 1979).
Barber v. Mun. Court, 598 P.2d 818 (Cal. 1979).
· cites it 4× “" Penal Code section 636 makes it a felony for anyone to eavesdrop or record "a conversation" between "a person who is in the physical custody of a law enforcement officer .”
Romero v. Securus Tech., Inc., 216 F. Supp. 3d 1078 (S.D. Cal. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The FAC alleges (1) violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”), Cal. Penal Code § 636 , (2) violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 (“section 17200”), (3) fraudulent concealment/omission, (4) fraudulent misrepresentation, (5)…”
North v. Superior Court, 502 P.2d 1305 (Cal. 1972).
· cites it 3× “(Pen. Code, § 636.) [2] (7) Thus, California law does recognize some exceptions to the broad rule that a prisoner has no right of privacy in a jail, exceptions which focus upon the special relationship between the communicants.”
Faunce v. Cate, 222 Cal. App. 4th 166 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“Penal Code section 636 makes it a crime to eavesdrop on a prisoner’s conversation with certain individuals in situations where the prisoner has a reasonable expectation of privacy.”
People v. Loyd, 45 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “[1] Penal Code section 636, subdivision (a), makes it a felony to eavesdrop on, or secretly record, a detainee's or prisoner's conversation with his or her "attorney, religious adviser, or licensed physician.”
Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc., 383 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (S.D. Cal. 2019).
“Furthermore, the court's order presented an issue of first impression-the intent requirement of Cal. Penal Code § 636 (a). Securus petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, among other issues, on whether this intent requirement presents a common question to all class members or…”
Morrow v. Superior Court, 30 Cal. App. 4th 1252 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994).
“(Pen. Code, § 636.) The prosecutor and the investigator successfully demurred to the information.”
People v. Penrod, 112 Cal. App. 3d 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).
“Also, prospective witnesses mentioned by appellant were from Sacramento, and witnesses desired by appellant, from Sacramento, in fact testified at trial.”
Lindholm v. Galvin, 95 Cal. App. 3d 443 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979).
“Penal Code section 636 provides, in part pertinent to the issue here, that “[e]very person who, without permission from all parties to the conversation, eavesdrops on or records by means of an electronic or other device, a conversation .”
People v. Loyd, 27 Cal. 4th 997 (Cal. 2002).
“Prosecutors who request such monitoring have, at a minimum, an ethical obligation to ensure that such monitoring is in compliance with the Act. The demise of De Lancie does not signal a death knell for the protections afforded under federal law.”
People v. Jordan, 217 Cal. App. 3d 640 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990).
“2 Penal Code section 636 provides in part: “Every person, who, without permission from all parties to the conversation, eavesdrops on .”
Yates v. Sonoma Cnty. (N.D. Cal. 2024).
“State Law Claims (Claims Three and Five) 25 The complaint also alleges two state law claims: (1) false arrest and imprisonment (Claim 26 Three), and (2) unlawful jail call wiretapping under California Penal Code Sections 636 and 637.”
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.