22-2518.
Same; civil action for damages; defense available in civil and criminal actions.
(1) Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall 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 communications, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:
(a) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
(2) A good faith reliance by any person on a court order authorizing the interception of any wire, oral or electronic communication shall constitute a complete defense in any civil or criminal action brought against such person based upon such interception.
History:
L. 1974, ch. 150, § 5; L. 1988, ch. 117, § 4; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Fields v. Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 985 F. Supp. 1308 (D. Kan. 1997).
· cites it 3× “, and the Kansas Wiretap Act, K.S.A. 22-2518, and invaded their privacy by intercepting, using, and/or disclosing the contents of plaintiffs’ private telephone communications.”
Banks v. Opat, 814 F. App'x 325 (10th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2518 Chief Brown, and Agent 2.”
State v. Gibson, 874 P.2d 1122 (Kan. 1994).
“K.S.A. 22-2518 establishes a civil cause of action for damages for any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communications have been unlawfully intercepted.”
Banks v. Opat, No. 5:15-cv-03093 (D. Kan. Dec. 27, 2021).
· cites it 8× “§ 2520 (d); K.S.A. § 22-2518(2). “To be in good faith, the officers’ reliance must have been objectively reasonable.”
Thompson v. Virden, No. 19-3072 (10th Cir. May 12, 2020).
· cites it 4× “Violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2518 Virden, and Sheriff Wolf, 2.”
Banks v. Opat, No. 23-3102 (10th Cir. June 11, 2024).
“§ 2520 (d)(1); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-2518 (2). The court applied these defenses here, concluding that the agents’ reliance on the orders had been objectively reasonable.”
K.S.A. § 22-2518(2): 1 case
Banks v. Opat, No. 5:15-cv-03093 (D. Kan. Dec. 27, 2021).
“§ 2520 (d); K.S.A. § 22-2518(2). “To be in good faith, the officers’ reliance must have been objectively reasonable.”
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.