Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-41r (2026)

Remedies of party intercepted; defense

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter or of sections 53a-187 to 53a-189, inclusive, shall (1) have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication, and (2) be entitled to recover from any such person actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars per day for each day of violation or one thousand dollars, whichever is higher; punitive damages; and a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought in accordance with the provisions of this chapter or any other law.

(1971, P.A. 68, S. 18.)

Cited. 191 C. 360; 212 C. 485; 224 C. 593.

Cited. 3 CA 477; 14 CA 605.

Cited. 30 CS 302.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case: Schmidt v. Devino, 206 F. Supp. 2d 301 (D. Conn. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schmidt v. Devino, 206 F. Supp. 2d 301 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 9× “” Conn.Gen. Stat. § 54-41r. Plaintiffs claim entitlement to damages pursuant to the State Wiretap Act, relying on the same analysis as was utilized under 18 U.”

State v. McVeigh, 620 A.2d 133 (Conn. 1993). · cites it 4× “cepted; see General Statutes § 54-41k 23 ; a copy of his intercepted communications and the evidence derived therefrom; see General Statutes § 54-41m; footnote 13; suppression of any unlawful interception of *614 his conversations in any judicial or administrative proceeding;…”

State v. Brown, 543 A.2d 750 (Conn. App. Ct. 1988). · cites it 2× “The purpose of this 'service on an unnamed interceptee is to alert “him promptly to the fact that his conversations were intercepted, thus enabling him to obtain from the panel copies of his conversations, the applications and orders ‘immediately upon the filing of a motion…”

State v. Formica, 489 A.2d 1060 (Conn. App. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “he service of the ninety day post-intercept inventory within the required time period on one who was not a named target of the tap alerts him promptly to the fact that his conversations were intercepted, thus enabling him to obtain from the panel *483 copies of his…”

Phillips v. Am. Motorist Ins. Co., 996 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). “86 (West 1998); Conn. Gen.Stat. Ann. § 54-41r (West 1997); Del.”

Higgins v. Fuessenich, 452 F. Supp. 1331 (D. Conn. 1978). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ additional claim under Connecticut General Statutes § 54-41r is cognizable pursuant to this court’s pendent jurisdiction.”

Schmidt v. Devino, 206 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D. Conn. 2001). · cites it 4× “The State Wiretap Act provides that “[a]ny person whose wire communication is intercepted .”

Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Cantillon (Conn. 2023). · cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 35-53 (b) (capping punitive damages in wilful and malicious misappropriation actions); General Statutes § 46a-89 (b) (2) (C) (same, discriminatory housing and public accommodations practices actions); General Statutes § 46a-98 (c) and (d) (same,…”

State v. Anonymous, 30 Conn. Supp. 302 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1973). “Section § 54-41r provides for a civil action against any person who intercepts or discloses a wire communiea *309 tion in violation of the statute.”

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.