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

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 526.020 (2026)

Eavesdropping

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time. (2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 227, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2023 · leading case: Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Springer v. Commonwealth, 998 S.W.2d 439 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 4× “; KRS 526.020; KRS 526.060. As with her "invocation of silence" argument, supra, this otherwise unpreserved claim is ripe for determination with respect to the admissibility of Eades's confession upon retrial.”
Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 151 S.W.3d 781 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “Brummett, and Tina Sparks, without the consent of at least one party to said conversations, in violation of KRS 526.020. 4. That the defendants, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.”
Brock v. Commonwealth, 947 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. 1997). · cites it 2× “Exclusion of this evidence on grounds that it was cumulative was outside the discretion normally exercised by a trial judge in performing the KRE 403 balancing test.”
Basham v. Commonwealth, 675 S.W.2d 376 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 2× “" KRS 526.020. It further provides that any person intentionally installing or possessing a device for use in eavesdropping, or divulging information thus illegally obtained, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Walker v. Commonwealth, 127 S.W.3d 596 (Ky. 2004). “2d 376 (1984), wiretap evidence otherwise illegally obtained in violation of Kentucky’s eavesdropping statute, KRS 526.020, was held admissible because the wiretap had been authorized by an order of a federal district court judge.”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “§ 21-4002 (1996); Ky.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 526.020, 526.060 (Michie 1998); La.”
Trenton Easterling v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019). · cites it 7× “The trial court denied the suppression motion reasoning: 1) KRS 526.020 implies that a person must have an expectation of privacy, making it inapplicable to events at a police station, and thus posing no obstacle to admitting the conversation in question; and 2) the video was…”
Amanda Havill v. Jefferson Neal (Ky. Ct. App. 2023). “, 2 KRS 526.020. -7- which read “Wow/ I heard your conversation with JD-Are you too intoxicated to hang up your phone when our conversation was over??”3 The family court declined to grant the extension of the DVO.”
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.