(1) Any person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he:
(a) Knowingly overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver thereof or attempts to do so; or
(b) Intentionally overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing or aiding or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or
(c) Knowingly uses for any purpose or discloses to any person the contents of any such communication, or attempts to do so, while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or
(d) Knowingly taps or makes any connection with any telephone or telegraph line, wire, cable, or instrument belonging to another or with any electronic, mechanical, or other device belonging to another or installs any device whether connected or not which permits the interception of messages; or
(e) Repealed.
(f) Knowingly uses any apparatus to unlawfully do, or cause to be done, any act prohibited by this section or aids, authorizes, agrees with, employs, permits, or intentionally conspires with any person to violate the provisions of this section.
(2) Wiretapping is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 473, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-9-303. L. 77: (1)(a), (1)(c), (1)(d), (1)(e), and (1)(f) amended, p. 969, § 59, effective July 1. L. 88: (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), and (1)(e) amended, p. 693, § 6, effective May 29. L. 89: (2) amended, p. 841, § 90, effective July 1. L. 97:
(2) amended, p. 602, § 3, effective August 6. L. 2002: (1)(e) repealed, p. 1588, § 23, effective July 1. L. 2021: (2) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3206, § 330, effective March 1, 2022. L. 2023: (2) amended, (HB 23-1293), ch. 298, p. 1790, § 40, effective October 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1975–2015 · leading case:
People v. Shepard, 983 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1999).
People v. Shepard, 983 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1999).
· cites it 18× “We hold that section 18-9-303(l)(e) is constitutional on its face and as applied to Shepard’s alleged conduct.”
People v. Richardson, 983 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1999).
· cites it 22× “The trial court also held that section 18-9-303 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions because it sets different degrees of punishment depending upon whether the wiretapping involved a corded or cordless phone.”
People v. Mares, 263 P.3d 699 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 6× “Section 18-9-303 sets forth the prohibition against wiretapping.”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
“§631 (West 1999); Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-9-303 (2000); Del. Code Ann.”
People v. DeGreat, 2015 COA 101 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “And he argues that recording the calls violated the wiretapping statute, section 18-9-303(1), C.R.S. 2014. DeGreatâs arguments present a mixed question of fact and law, which we review by deferring to the trial courtâs factual findings while reviewing its conclusions of law…”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007).
· cites it 2× “5 (1999); Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 18-9-303 & 304 (2006); Del.”
People v. Blehm, 623 P.2d 411 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “In general, under § 18-9-303, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl. Vol. 8), the offense of wiretapping is committed by “[a]ny person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication” who overhears, copies, or uses such a communication.”
People v. Home Ins., 591 P.2d 1036 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 3× “8), 1 unauthorized wiretapping of telephone or telegraph communication, section 18-9-303, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. McCauley, 561 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 6× “NOTES [1] Now section 18-9-303(1), C.R.S.1973. [2] Now section 18-9-305(1), C.”
People v. Interest of A.W., 982 P.2d 842 (Colo. 1999).
· cites it 2× “(1998), and the Criminal Eavesdropping Statute, sections 18-9-303 and -304, 6 C.R.S. (1998).”
Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc., 807 F. Supp. 653 (D. Colo. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Defendants rely on Colorado’s wiretapping statute, C.R.S. § 18-9-303, which provides in relevant part: (1) Any person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he: (a) Knowingly overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records…”
People v. Morton, 539 P.2d 1255 (Colo. 1975).
· cites it 2× “Since those statutes, Section 18-9-303 and 18-9-304, C.R.S. 1973, do not prohibit or make unlawful the kind of consensual situation present here, where one party to the conversation agrees to the recording, there is no “unlawful interception” within the meaning of Section…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(1) — 2 cases
People v. DeGreat, 2015 COA 101 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“And he argues that recording the calls violated the wiretapping statute, section 18-9-303(1), C.R.S. 2014. DeGreatâs arguments present a mixed question of fact and law, which we review by deferring to the trial courtâs factual findings while reviewing its conclusions of law…”
People v. McCauley, 561 P.2d 335 (Colo. 1977).
“NOTES [1] Now section 18-9-303(1), C.R.S.1973. [2] Now section 18-9-305(1), C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(1)(a) — 1 case
People v. Mares, 263 P.3d 699 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
“Section 18-9-303 sets forth the prohibition against wiretapping.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(2) — 1 case
People v. Richardson, 983 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1999).
“The trial court also held that section 18-9-303 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions because it sets different degrees of punishment depending upon whether the wiretapping involved a corded or cordless phone.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(l)(a) — 2 cases
People v. Richardson, 983 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1999).
“The trial court also held that section 18-9-303 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions because it sets different degrees of punishment depending upon whether the wiretapping involved a corded or cordless phone.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(l)(e) — 2 cases
People v. Shepard, 983 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1999).
“We hold that section 18-9-303(l)(e) is constitutional on its face and as applied to Shepard’s alleged conduct.”
People v. Richardson, 983 P.2d 5 (Colo. 1999).
“The trial court also held that section 18-9-303 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Colorado Constitutions because it sets different degrees of punishment depending upon whether the wiretapping involved a corded or cordless phone.”
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.