Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 54 — CRIMINAL PROCEDURE · Chapter 959a — Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41a (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The following words and phrases, as used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) “Wire communication” means any communication made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of telephone or telegraph between the point of origin and the point of reception furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate or foreign communications;

(2) “Intercept” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a wire communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device or a cell site simulator device;

(3) “Electronic, mechanical or other device” means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire communication other than (A) any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof (i) furnished to the subscriber or used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business, or (ii) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or (B) a hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal;

(4) “Cell site simulator device” means a device that transmits or receives radio waves for the purpose of conducting one or more of the following operations: (A) Identifying, locating or tracking the movements of a communications device, (B) intercepting, obtaining, accessing or forwarding the communications, stored data or metadata of a communications device, (C) affecting the hardware or software operations or functions of a communications device, (D) forcing transmissions from, or connections to, a communications device, (E) denying a communications device access to other communications devices, communications protocols or services, or (F) spoofing or simulating a communications device, cell tower, cell site or service. “Cell site simulator device” includes, but is not limited to, an international mobile subscriber identity catcher or other invasive cell phone or telephone surveillance or eavesdropping device that mimics a cell phone tower and sends out signals to cause cell phones in the area to transmit their locations, identifying information and communications content, or a passive interception device or digital analyzer that does not send signals to a communications device under surveillance. “Cell site simulator device” does not include any device used or installed by an electric distribution company, as defined in section 16-1, solely to the extent that such device is used by the electric distribution company to measure electrical usage, to provide services to customers or to operate the electric grid;

(5) “Person” means any officer, agent or employee of the state of Connecticut or any political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, limited liability company or corporation;

(6) “Investigative officer” means (A) any officer of the Connecticut state police, (B) the chief inspector or any inspector in the Division of Criminal Justice who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, (C) any municipal police officer who has been duly sworn as a special state police officer under the provisions of section 29-177 and who is currently assigned to the state-wide narcotics task force or the state-wide organized crime investigative task force and is acting under the direct authority of the Connecticut state police, and (D) any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of offenses enumerated in this chapter;

(7) “Law enforcement officer” means any officer of any organized police department of this state or of the state police of any other state, an official of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration or United States Customs Service, or the United States attorney for the district of Connecticut or a person designated by him in writing to receive the contents of any wire communication or evidence derived therefrom;

(8) “Contents”, when used with respect to any wire communication, means and includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, substance, purport or meaning of that communication;

(9) “Panel of judges” or “panel” means any panel or panels of three Superior Court judges specifically designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from time to time to receive applications for, and to enter orders authorizing, interceptions of wire communications in accordance with the provisions of this chapter;

(10) “Communication common carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in the transmission of communications by wire or radio;

(11) “Aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire communication, a person against whom the interception was directed, a person named in any order authorizing an interception, or a person having a property interest in any premises involved in any interception.

(1971, P.A. 68, S. 1; P.A. 79-179, S. 1; P.A. 82-368, S. 1; P.A. 83-543, S. 1; P.A. 87-229; P.A. 95-79, S. 184, 189; P.A. 17-221, S. 1.)

History: P.A. 79-179 replaced single definition for “investigative or law enforcement officer” with a separate definition for each, applying existing definition to investigative officers and adding chief inspectors and inspectors of criminal justice division; P.A. 82-368 expanded the definitions of “investigative office” to include municipal police officers as specified and “law enforcement officer” to include state police of other states and FBI or Drug Enforcement Administration officials; P.A. 83-543 expanded the definition of “law enforcement officer” to include the U.S. attorney for Connecticut or his designee; P.A. 87-229 expanded the definition of “law enforcement officer” to include an official of the United States Customs Service; P.A. 95-79 redefined “person” to include a limited liability company, effective May 31, 1995; P.A. 17-221 redefined “intercept” in Subdiv. (2) to include reference to cell site simulator device, added new Subdiv. (4) to define “cell site simulator device”, redesignated existing Subdivs. (4) to (10) as Subdivs. (5) to (11), and made technical changes.

Cited. 171 C. 524; 191 C. 360; 194 C. 447. “Wire communication” as defined in section includes the radio wave portion of a cordless telephone conversation. 224 C. 593. Cited. 238 C. 253; Id., 692.

Cited. 8 CA 673; 10 CA 347.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1976–2007 · leading case: State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 48× “The dispositive issue in these consolidated appeals is whether a communication over the radio wave portion of a cordless telephone is a “[w]ire communi *595 cation” as defined in General Statutes § 54-41a (1), 1 which is part of our judicially supervised wiretap act (wiretap…”
Washington v. Meachum, 680 A.2d 262 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 7× “The plaintiffs appeal, claiming that the trial court improperly concluded that: (1) the department regulations permitting the monitoring and recording of nonprivileged inmate telephone calls (a) do not violate either the “eavesdropping statutes”; General Statutes §§ 53a-187…”
State v. Tomasko, 681 A.2d 922 (Conn. 1996). · cites it 6× ““In general terms, our wiretap act [General Statutes § 54-41a et seq.] provides that, based upon certain specified findings, a panel of three Superior Court judges may issue an order authorizing ‘the interception of wire communications within the state of Connecticut.”
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995). · cites it 7× “(Title III), 28 and the Connecticut Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Act, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 54-41a et seq. (State Wiretap Act).”
State v. Ross, 481 A.2d 730 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 8× “, erred in concluding that there was no probable cause to support the state’s application for an order authorizing interception of certain telephonic communications under General Statutes § 54-41a et seq. On May 1,1981, the state’s attorney for the judicial district of Waterbury…”
State v. DeMartin, 370 A.2d 1038 (Conn. 1976). · cites it 8× “The defendant also moved to suppress the transcripts of these conversations.”
State v. John G., 918 A.2d 986 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 4× “[5] The defendant makes no claim that the state violated Connecticut's wiretapping statutes, General Statutes § 54-41a et seq. [6] We note that although the court denied the defendant's motion to suppress on the basis of State v.”
State v. Thompson, 464 A.2d 799 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 8× “These appeals concern the extent to which the state police are required to minimize electronic *362 surveillance when conducting telephone wiretaps pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41a et seq. (wiretap statute), in the course of a narcotics investigation.”
State v. Chiarizio, 514 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 6× “We do not believe that General Statutes § 54-41a requires more from the three-judge wiretap panel.”
State v. Grullon, 562 A.2d 481 (Conn. 1989). · cites it 3× “II The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the transcripts of his telephone conversations with the brother, which he had moved to suppress prior to trial, because (a) the wiretap constituted an unreasonable search, and (b) there is no…”
State v. Ross, 454 A.2d 266 (Conn. 1983). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes §§ 54-41a *45 through 54-41s.”
State v. McLoughlin, 723 A.2d 827 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998). · cites it 15× “2d 133 (1993) (holding that cordless telephones are covered by General Statutes §§ 54-41a through 54-41t, Connecticut’s wiretap statutes).”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41a(10) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 464 A.2d 799 (Conn. 1983). “These appeals concern the extent to which the state police are required to minimize electronic *362 surveillance when conducting telephone wiretaps pursuant to General Statutes § 54-41a et seq. (wiretap statute), in the course of a narcotics investigation.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41a(2) — 1 case
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995). “(Title III), 28 and the Connecticut Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Act, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 54-41a et seq. (State Wiretap Act).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41a(3) — 1 case
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995). “(Title III), 28 and the Connecticut Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Act, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 54-41a et seq. (State Wiretap Act).”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41a(4) — 2 cases
Crooker v. U. S. Dep't of Just., 497 F. Supp. 500 (D. Conn. 1980).
Schmidt v. Devino, 206 F. Supp. 2d 301 (D. Conn. 2001).
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41a(l) — 1 case
In Re State Police Litig., 888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Conn. 1995). “(Title III), 28 and the Connecticut Wiretap and Electronic Surveillance Act, Conn.Gen.Stat. § 54-41a et seq. (State Wiretap Act).”
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.