C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS › Subpart H—Prohibition Against Eavesdropping

47 C.F.R. § 2.701

Prohibition against use of a radio device for eavesdropping

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person shall use, either directly or indirectly, a device required to be licensed by section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for the purpose of overhearing or recording the private conversations of others unless such use is authorized by all of the parties engaging in the conversation.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to operations of any law enforcement officers conducted under lawful authority.

[31 FR 3400, Mar. 4, 1966]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1967–1990 · leading case: Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967). · cites it 2× “3400 , 47 CFR § 2.701 , prohibits the use of "a device required to be licensed by section 301 of the Communications Act" for the purpose of eavesdropping.”
Sandra Boddie v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson & Maravilla Prod. Co., Inc., 731 F.2d 333 (6th Cir. 1984). · cites it 2× “Boddie also charged that the defendants’ activities were contrary to regulations of the Federal Communications Commission that prohibit the use of electronic devices for eavesdropping without the consent of the parties engaged in the conversation, 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.701 , 15.4,…”
Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Martínez Cardona, 114 P.R. Dec. 328 (1983). “El entendido contemporáneo de nuestra Constitución fue que la prohibición de intervenir la comunicación telefónica era renunciable, mas de modo expreso y por ambas partes.”
Brooks v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 431 (N.D. Ohio 1990). “47 C.F.R. § 2.701 (a) states that “[n]o person shall use .”
— 47 C.F.R. § 2.701(a) — 1 case
Puerto Rico Tel. Co. v. Martínez Cardona, 114 P.R. Dec. 328 (1983). “El entendido contemporáneo de nuestra Constitución fue que la prohibición de intervenir la comunicación telefónica era renunciable, mas de modo expreso y por ambas partes.”
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.