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

Iowa Code § 808B.4 (2026)

Permissible disclosure and use

✓ Iowa Code 2026 (laws through the 2025 session)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. A special state agent who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or has obtained evidence derived from a wire, oral, or electronic communication, may disclose the contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that the disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

2. An investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication or has obtained evidence derived from a wire, oral, or electronic communication may use\n\nTue Dec 09 21:54:03 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 808B (21, 0) §808B.4, INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS 4\n\nthe contents to the extent the use is appropriate to the proper performance of the officer’s official duties.

3. A person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived from a wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in a criminal proceeding in any court of the United States or of this state or in any federal or state grand jury proceeding.

4. An otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter does not lose its privileged character.

5. If a special state agent, while engaged in intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication in the manner authorized, intercepts a communication relating to an offense other than those specified in the order of authorization, the contents of the communication, and the evidence derived from the communication, may be disclosed or used as provided in subsections 1 and 2. The contents of and the evidence derived from the communication may be used under subsection 3 when authorized by a court if the court finds on subsequent petition that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with this chapter. The petition shall be made as soon as practicable. 89 Acts, ch 225, §25; 99 Acts, ch 78, §11 Referred to in §808B.5 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2007–2007 · leading case: State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007). “§ 808B.4(3). Therefore, in order to decide whether the district court correctly barred the recordings from evidence, we must determine whether the provisions of chapter 808B allow Thompson to vicariously consent to the recording of conversations between A.”
State Of Iowa Vs. Jeffrey Lewis Spencer, No. 50 / 06-0565 (Iowa Aug. 3, 2007). “§ 808B.4(3). Therefore, in order to decide whether the district court correctly barred the recordings from evidence, we must determine whether the provisions of chapter 808B allow Thompson to vicariously consent to the recording of conversations between A.”
Iowa Code § 808B.4(3): 2 cases
State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007). “§ 808B.4(3). Therefore, in order to decide whether the district court correctly barred the recordings from evidence, we must determine whether the provisions of chapter 808B allow Thompson to vicariously consent to the recording of conversations between A.”
State Of Iowa Vs. Jeffrey Lewis Spencer, No. 50 / 06-0565 (Iowa Aug. 3, 2007). “§ 808B.4(3). Therefore, in order to decide whether the district court correctly barred the recordings from evidence, we must determine whether the provisions of chapter 808B allow Thompson to vicariously consent to the recording of conversations between A.”
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.