(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:
(1) Any federal, state or local criminal law enforcement official or agent of any such official who in the lawful performance of such official's or agent's duties, or at the request or direction of such official or agent in the performance of such official's or agent's duties, records telephonic communications;
(2) Any officer, employee or agent of a public or private safety agency, as defined in section 28-25, who in the lawful performance of his duties records telephonic communications of an emergency nature;
(3) Any person who, as the recipient of a telephonic communication which conveys threats of extortion, bodily harm or other unlawful requests or demands, records such telephonic communication;
(4) Any person who, as the recipient of a telephonic communication which occurs repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour, records such telephonic communication;
(5) Any officer, employee or agent of any communication common carrier who in the lawful performance of his duties records telephonic communications or provides facilities to an investigative officer or criminal law enforcement official authorized pursuant to chapter 959a to intercept a wire communication;
(6) Any officer, employee or agent of a Federal Communications Commission licensed broadcast station who records a telephonic communication solely for broadcast over the air;
(7) Any officer, employee or agent of the United States Secret Service who records telephonic communications which concern the safety and security of the President of the United States, members of his immediate family or the White House and its grounds; and
(8) Any officer, employee or agent of a Federal Communications Commission broadcast licensee who records a telephonic communication as part of a broadcast network or cooperative programming effort solely for broadcast over the air by a licensed broadcast station.
(c) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to recover damages, together with costs and a reasonable attorney's fee.
(P.A. 90-305; P.A. 19-132, S. 3; P.A. 21-40, S. 51.)
History: P.A. 19-132 amended Subsec. (b)(1) by replacing “criminal law enforcement official who in the lawful performance of his duties records telephonic communications” with “law enforcement official or agent of any such official who in the lawful performance of such official or agent's duties, or at the request or direction of such official or agent in the performance of such official or agent's duties, records telephonic communications”; P.A. 21-40 made technical changes in Subsec. (b)(1).
Cited. 238 C. 692.
Does not apply to rerecording of illegally taped telephone conversation. 47 CA 764. Section does not waive sovereign immunity by force of necessary implication, and Subsecs. (a) and (b) can be read as an implicit waiver of the state's sovereign immunity from liability but not as an implicit waiver of the state's sovereign immunity from suit. 193 CA 576.
Notes of Decisions
Holler v. Buckley Broad. Corp., 706 A.2d 1379 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 14× “2 On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that (1) the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support a claim of tortious interference with business relations and (2) General Statutes § 52-570d does not apply to the rerecording of an…”
Jezouit v. Malloy, 193 Conn. App. 576 (Conn. App. Ct. 2019).
· cites it 55× “The plaintiff argues that the court improperly dismissed his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign immunity by force of necessary implication, and (2) he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in…”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 6× “10 The plaintiffs concede, however, that the activities permitted by the regulations are fully consistent with the more recent recording statute, *707 General Statutes § 52-570d. 11 Before addressing the plaintiffs’ claims, it is useful to trace the history of the legislation…”
News Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc. v. Marquis, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 357 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Lord involved an action for, inter alia, the illegal recording of a telephone conversation in violation of General Statutes § 52-570d (c), which provides: “Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (a) of this section may bring a civil action in the Superior Court to…”
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995).
· cites it 4× “90-305, codified at Connecticut General Statutes § 52-570d (Recording Act); see generally Washington v.”
Lawton v. Weiner, 882 A.2d 151 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 2× “; and in count nine, recording of private telephone calls in violation of General Statutes § 52-570d (c). After the defendants filed a notice of compliance with discovery requests on February 8, 1999, the plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions against the defendants for failure…”
Marini v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 64 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D. Conn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “See Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-570d. Other in-person recordings were potentially actionable on invasion of privacy grounds.”
State v. Martin, 825 A.2d 835 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
“Inmate telephone calls shall be recorded in accordance with the provision of Section 52-570d of the Connecticut General Statutes and any other applicable law.”
Intercity Co. Establishment v. Ahto, 13 F. Supp. 2d 253 (D. Conn. 1998).
· cites it 2× “In 1995, in response to Intercity’s amended claim, Shearson asserted a counterclaim against Intercity, claiming that Intercity’s authorized agent, von Mecklenburg, violated Connecticut law, C.G.S.A. § 52-570d, by illegally and surreptitiously tape-recording telephone…”
State v. Skok (Conn. 2015).
· cites it 7× “General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral pri- vate telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment .”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a) — 1 case
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995).
“90-305, codified at Connecticut General Statutes § 52-570d (Recording Act); see generally Washington v.”
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.