Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 53a — PENAL CODE · Chapter 952 — Penal Code: Offenses
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189 (2025)

Eavesdropping: Class D felony

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation.

(b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony.

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 191.)

See Sec. 52-570d re prohibition on recording private telephonic communications and civil remedies for violation thereof.

Cited. 171 C. 524; 197 C. 326; 212 C. 195; 216 C. 541; 224 C. 593; 238 C. 692.

Cited. 8 CA 673; 15 CA 529.

Cordless telephone conversations are protected telephonic communications. 45 CS 497.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Rado v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Naugatuck, 583 A.2d 102 (Conn. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rado v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Naugatuck, 583 A.2d 102 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 3× “This action followed his arrest on three counts of eavesdropping in violation of General Statutes § 53a-189, 4 a class D felony, which imposes criminal liability when a person “unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation.”
State v. Bruno, 497 A.2d 758 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “, of six counts of eavesdropping in violation of General Statutes § 53a-189, one count of conspiracy to commit eavesdropping in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-189, and two counts of criminal mischief in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-115.”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 53a-189 (a) provides: “A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation.”
State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 2× ““(b) This section and sections 53a-188 and 53a-189 shall not apply to wiretapping by criminal law enforcement officials in the lawful performance of their duties and do not affect the admissibility of evidence in any proceedings other than a prosecution for eavesdropping or…”
Sullivan v. Stein, 487 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D. Conn. 2007). · cites it 2× “Sullivan was arrested on charges of eavesdropping on his mother in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-189. See Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Municipal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [doc.”
State v. Chiarizio, 514 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 2× “§ 2511; General Statutes § 53a-189. The order was clearly relevant in order to establish that the telephone company was acting within the law.”
Gedney v. Bd. of Educ., 703 A.2d 804 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 3× “The school board’s decision relied on “moral misconduct” and “other due and sufficient cause,” two of the reasons for termination of a tenured teacher specified by § 10-151 (d). On appeal, the trial court held that the school board acted appropriately.”
State v. McLoughlin, 723 A.2d 827 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “Subsequently, the defendant was charged in violation of General Statutes § 53a-189, eavesdropping, which is a class D felony.”
Rivera v. Rivera, 546 A.2d 309 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 4× “” General Statutes § 53a-189 makes wiretapping a class D felony known as eavesdropping.”
Reck v. Bertsch, No. 3:18-cv-00861 (D. Conn. Mar. 25, 2020). · cites it 5× “To the extent that Reck attempts to assert an independent cause of action for violating § 53a-189, I dismiss any such claim because Reck cites no authority suggesting there is a private right of action under § 53a- 189 for a victim of “mechanical overhearing,” Conn. Gen. Stat. §…”
Welsh v. Martinez, 114 A.3d 1231 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “7 More specifically, the negligence per se count alleged that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable and violative of General Statutes §§ 53a-189, 53a- 189a, and 53a-189b, which govern the offenses of eavesdropping, voyeurism, and dissemination of voyeuristic material,…”
Sullivan v. Hyland, 647 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Conn. 2009). · cites it 4× “Plaintiffs allege that Hyland also conspired with defendants Zigmont and Coffey, who are state inspectors, in order to prosecute groundless charges of eavesdropping against plaintiff Philip Sullivan, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189. (Id., ¶¶ 4, 8).”
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.