Iowa Code » Chapter 808B — INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 808B.2 (2026)

Unlawful acts — penalty

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who does any of the following commits a class “D” felony:

a. Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication.

b. Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when either of the following applies:

(1) The device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication.

(2) The device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of radio communications.

c. Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection.

d. Willfully uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection.

2. a. It is not unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a communications common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in an activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of the communication. However, communications common carriers shall not use service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

b. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, if the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

c. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law\n\nTue Dec 09 21:54:03 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 808B (21, 0) 3 INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS, §808B.4\n\nto intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if the person is a party to the communication or if one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

d. It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person who is the owner or lessee of real property to intercept an oral communication if the person intercepts the oral communication under all of the following circumstances:

(1) The interception of the oral communication is made by a surveillance system placed in or on the real property owned or leased by the person.

(2) The surveillance system is installed with the knowledge and consent of all lawful owners or lessees of the real property.

(3) The surveillance system is used for the purpose of detecting or preventing criminal activity in or on the real property owned or leased by the person or in an area accessible to the general public in the immediate vicinity of the real property owned or leased by the person.

3. An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a communications common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission or interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall not disclose the existence of any transmission or interception or the device used to accomplish the transmission or interception with respect to a court order under this chapter, except as may otherwise be required by legal process or court order. Violation of this subsection is a class “D” felony. 89 Acts, ch 225, §23; 99 Acts, ch 78, §6 – 9; 2018 Acts, ch 1102, §2 Referred to in §808B.5 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2021 · 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 24× “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 14× “See Iowa Code § 808B.2 (imposing liability when person "a.”
State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007). · cites it 18× “Iowa Code § 808B.2. If an interception is in violation of chapter 808B, the evidence is barred from any court proceeding.”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). · cites it 2× “); Iowa Code § 808B.2 (1994); Kan. Stat. Ann.”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “§ 35-45-2-4 (West 1994) (limiting criminal disclosure liability to telecommunications employees); Iowa Code §§ 808B.2, 808B.8 (1994), as amended by Act of Apr.”
Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa 2017). · cites it 14× “8 requires something more: a finding of “at least a voluntary, intentional 1See Iowa Code § 808B.2 (imposing liability when person “a.”
Iowa Beta Chapter Of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Vs. State Of Iowa, Univ. Of Iowa, & Phillip E. Jones (Iowa 2009). · cites it 23× “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
State Of Iowa Vs. Jeffrey Lewis Spencer (Iowa 2007). · cites it 16× “Iowa Code § 808B.2. If an interception is in violation of chapter 808B, the evidence is barred from any court proceeding.”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 200 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 1999). “§§ 570-A:2, 570-A:ll; N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A-287, 15A-296; Ohio Rev.”
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “4 The district court filed a decision on October 20, 2015, finding Jones had violated section 808B.2 by willfully intercepting Papillon’s communications.”
Marcus Darrell Eugene Luthi v. Client Neis, in his Off. & individual capacities, & Wapello Cnty., Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Under section 808B.2 “willfully” means “purposeful conduct without a bad motive or a knowing unlawful component.”
State of Iowa v. David Anthony Araiza (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “21 (2013) and not guilty of two counts of unlawfully intercepting communications, in violation of section 808B.2(1)(a). The invasion-of-privacy counts were based on Araiza’s unauthorized installation of cameras in the bedroom of a home.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(1) — 2 cases
Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
Iowa Beta Chapter Of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Vs. State Of Iowa, Univ. Of Iowa, & Phillip E. Jones (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(1)(a) — 4 cases
Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa 2017). “8 requires something more: a finding of “at least a voluntary, intentional 1See Iowa Code § 808B.2 (imposing liability when person “a.”
State of Iowa v. David Anthony Araiza (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). “21 (2013) and not guilty of two counts of unlawfully intercepting communications, in violation of section 808B.2(1)(a). The invasion-of-privacy counts were based on Araiza’s unauthorized installation of cameras in the bedroom of a home.”
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “4 The district court filed a decision on October 20, 2015, finding Jones had violated section 808B.2 by willfully intercepting Papillon’s communications.”
Iowa Beta Chapter Of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Vs. State Of Iowa, Univ. Of Iowa, & Phillip E. Jones (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(1)(c) — 1 case
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 200 F.3d 109 (3rd Cir. 1999). “§§ 570-A:2, 570-A:ll; N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A-287, 15A-296; Ohio Rev.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(1)(d) — 3 cases
Iowa Beta Chapter Of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity Vs. State Of Iowa, Univ. Of Iowa, & Phillip E. Jones (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “4 The district court filed a decision on October 20, 2015, finding Jones had violated section 808B.2 by willfully intercepting Papillon’s communications.”
Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa 2017). “8 requires something more: a finding of “at least a voluntary, intentional 1See Iowa Code § 808B.2 (imposing liability when person “a.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(2) — 1 case
State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007). “Iowa Code § 808B.2. If an interception is in violation of chapter 808B, the evidence is barred from any court proceeding.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(b) — 1 case
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “4 The district court filed a decision on October 20, 2015, finding Jones had violated section 808B.2 by willfully intercepting Papillon’s communications.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007). “Iowa Code § 808B.2. If an interception is in violation of chapter 808B, the evidence is barred from any court proceeding.”
State Of Iowa Vs. Jeffrey Lewis Spencer (Iowa 2007). “Iowa Code § 808B.2. If an interception is in violation of chapter 808B, the evidence is barred from any court proceeding.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(2)(e) — 1 case
State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007). “Iowa Code § 808B.2. If an interception is in violation of chapter 808B, the evidence is barred from any court proceeding.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(l)(a) — 2 cases
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2017). “See Iowa Code § 808B.2 (imposing liability when person "a.”
Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(l)(cZ) — 1 case
Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(l)(ci) — 1 case
Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
— Iowa Code § 808B.2(l)(d) — 2 cases
Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa 2017). “See Iowa Code § 808B.2 (imposing liability when person "a.”
Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, Univ. of Iowa, 763 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2009). “§ 2511 (d)); see Iowa Code § 808B.2. If a violation of the statute occurred, an aggrieved person was entitled to receive punitive damages without any further showing.”
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.