Ky. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 526
Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 526.010 (2026)

Definition

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The following definition applies in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: "Eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 226, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Major v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 700 (Ky. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Major v. Commonwealth, 177 S.W.3d 700 (Ky. 2006). · cites it 8× “Since official proceedings had not been instituted against the Appellant for the murder of Marlene at the time of the taping, and he was not incarcerated, it was not in violation of the Appellant's Fifth or Sixth Amendments rights.”
Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 2× “and KRS 526.010, et seq. Nor do these statutes have any application to the admissibility of Kimberly Springer's confession.”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “1980); Ky.Rev.Stat. § 526.010 (1999). Further, Michigan’s criminal eavesdropping laws have been interpreted as permitting the police to use an informant to record conversations with a suspect.”
People v. Rivera, 792 P.2d 786 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 13-3005 (1989); Cal.Penal Code § 633.5 (West 1989); Conn.”
Proj. Veritas v. Michael Schmidt, 72 F.4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). “310(a)(1) Kentucky: Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 526.010 , 526.020 78 PROJECT VERITAS V.”
Major v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W.3d 706 (Ky. 2009). “In Major I, this Court held that: Since official proceedings had not been instituted against the Appellant for the murder of Marlene at the time of the taping, and he was not incarcerated, [the phone call] was not in violation of the Appellant’s Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.…”
Carrier v. Commonwealth, 607 S.W.2d 115 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980). “See also KRS 526.010, which defines “eavesdrop” as “to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party thereto, by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.”
In re James Edward Davis, 701 S.W.3d 420 (Ky. 2024). · cites it 2× “The recording of 6 the conversation between Davis and Helton was not one lacking consent of at least one party and did not violate KRS 526.010 or any other statute. In 1984, the KBA Ethics Committee issued an opinion, KBA E-279, 2 relevant to the circumstances in this case.”
Preston Capps v. Nicolle Chapman, No. 2022 CA 000711 (Ky. Ct. App. June 15, 2023). “” KRS 526.010. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that “[t]he plain meaning of the statutory language is presumed to be what the legislature intended, and if the meaning is plain, then the court cannot base its interpretation on any other method or source.”
Justin Radcliff v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 2022 SC 0242 (Ky. Dec. 14, 2023). “” KRS 526.010. In other words, Kentucky is a one-party consent state for purposes of recording conversations.”
Trenton Easterling v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 580 S.W.3d 496 (Ky. 2019). “” KRS 526.010. 5 Easterling argues that eavesdropping occurred because neither Melissa Easterling, William Lay, nor he knew their conversation was being recorded— the room contained no signs informing occupants that their conversation could be recorded and none of the officers…”
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.