Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 808B.1 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. “Aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed.

2. “Contents”, when used with respect to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties to the communication or the existence, substance, purpose, or meaning of that communication.

3. “Court” means a district court in this state.

4. “Electronic communication” means any transfer of signals, signs, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce, but excludes the following:

a. Wire or oral communication.

b. Communication made through a tone-only paging device.

c. Communication from a tracking device.

d. Electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communication system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds.

5. “Electronic, mechanical, or other device” means a device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication other than either of the following:

a. A telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, or facility, or any component of it which is either of the following:

(1) Furnished to the subscriber or user 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 the subscriber’s or user’s business.

(2) Being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of the officer’s duties.

b. A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal hearing.

6. “Intercept” or “interception” means the aural acquisition of the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication through the use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device.

7. “Investigative or law enforcement officer” means a peace officer of this state or one of its political subdivisions or of the United States who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for criminal offenses, the attorney general, or a county attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of criminal offenses.

8. “Oral communication” means an oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances\n\nTue Dec 09 21:54:03 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 808B (21, 0) §808B.1, INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS 2\n\njustifying that expectation. An “oral communication” does not include an electronic communication.

9. “Pen register” means a device or process which records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing, or signaling information, but not the contents of the communication, transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted. “Pen register” does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider or any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of its business.

10. “Special state agent” means a sworn peace officer member of the department of public safety.

11. “Trap and trace device” means a device or process which captures the incoming electronic or other impulses which identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, but does not capture the contents of any communication.

12. “Wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, including the use of such connection in a switching station, furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce. 89 Acts, ch 225, §22; 99 Acts, ch 78, §1 – 5; 2009 Acts, ch 88, §6 – 8 Referred to in §808B.5 \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). · cites it 10× “” Iowa Code § 808B.1(8). To decide whether the recording was an oral communication under chapter 808B, we must construe section 808B.”

Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 808B.1(6). An oral communication is a communication “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation.”

State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “(1998); Iowa Code § 808B.1, et seq. (2003); Kan. Stat.”

State v. Fox, 493 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 1992). · cites it 2× “Section 808B.1 defines the terms used in the chapter and tracks the language contained in 18 U.”

Iowa Beta Chapter Of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Vs. State Of Iowa, Univ. Of Iowa, & Phillip E. Jones (Iowa 2009). · cites it 10× “§ 2510 (2)), with Iowa Code § 808B.1(8). The legislative history concerning section 2510 and the language defining an “oral communication” indicate the definition is intended to reflect existing law on a person’s expectation of privacy as discussed in Katz v.”

Marcus Darrell Eugene Luthi v. Client Neis, in his Off. & individual capacities, & Wapello Cnty., Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “” Iowa Code § 808B.1(8). To determine whether Luthi’s phone call with his attorney amounts to oral communication under chapter 808B, Luthi “must have exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as…”

Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa 2017). · cites it 2× “A violation also occurs when a person “[w]illfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of” an oral communication “knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained” through illegal interception. Id. § 808B.”

— Iowa Code § 808B.1(6) — 2 cases

Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2017). “§ 808B.1(6). An oral communication is a communication “uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation.”

Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa 2017). “A violation also occurs when a person “[w]illfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of” an oral communication “knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained” through illegal interception. Id. § 808B.”

— Iowa Code § 808B.1(8) — 5 cases

Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). “” Iowa Code § 808B.1(8). To decide whether the recording was an oral communication under chapter 808B, we must construe section 808B.”

Iowa Beta Chapter Of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Vs. State Of Iowa, Univ. Of Iowa, & Phillip E. Jones (Iowa 2009). “§ 2510 (2)), with Iowa Code § 808B.1(8). The legislative history concerning section 2510 and the language defining an “oral communication” indicate the definition is intended to reflect existing law on a person’s expectation of privacy as discussed in Katz v.”

Marcus Darrell Eugene Luthi v. Client Neis, in his Off. & individual capacities, & Wapello Cnty., Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). “” Iowa Code § 808B.1(8). To determine whether Luthi’s phone call with his attorney amounts to oral communication under chapter 808B, Luthi “must have exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy and that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as…”

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.