Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 15
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 710 (2026)

Offenses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  Interception, oral communications prohibited.  Any person, other than an employee of a communication common carrier, a law enforcement officer, an investigative officer, another employee of the Department of Corrections authorized to exercise law enforcement powers as described in Title 34‑A, section 3011 or a jail investigative officer or a jail employee acting at the direction of a jail investigative officer, carrying out practices otherwise permitted by this chapter, who intentionally or knowingly intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire or oral communication is guilty of a Class C crime.  
[PL 2013, c. 80, §2 (AMD).]
2.  Editing of tape recordings in judicial proceedings prohibited.  Any person who knowingly or intentionally edits, alters or tampers with any tape, transcription or other sound recording, or knows of such editing, altering or tampering, and presents that recording in any judicial proceeding or proceeding under oath, without fully indicating the nature of the changes made and the original state of the recording, is guilty of a Class C crime.  
[PL 1979, c. 663, §96 (AMD).]
3.  Disclosure or use of wire or oral communications prohibited.  A person is guilty of a Class C crime if the person:  
A. Intentionally or knowingly discloses or attempts to disclose to any person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception; or   [PL 1979, c. 663, §97 (RPR).]
B. Intentionally or knowingly uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception.   [PL 1979, c. 663, §97 (RPR).]
[RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. D, §50 (COR).]
4.  Duty to report.  Any communications common carrier shall promptly report to the Attorney General any facts coming to its attention in the conduct of its business which may indicate a possible violation of this section and such carrier shall adopt reasonable rules to assure compliance with this subsection, provided such carrier shall not be liable to any person who may claim an injury arising out of any such report, if made in good faith. Any person violating this subsection shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $5,000, payable to the State, to be recovered in a civil action.  
[PL 1979, c. 663, §98 (AMD).]
5.  Possession of interception devices prohibited.  A person, other than an employee of a communication common carrier, a law enforcement officer, an investigative officer, another employee of the Department of Corrections authorized to exercise law enforcement powers as described in Title 34‑A, section 3011 or a jail investigative officer or a jail employee acting at the direction of a jail investigative officer, carrying out practices otherwise permitted by this chapter, who has in that person's possession any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus designed or commonly used for intercepting wire or oral communications is guilty of a Class C crime.  
[PL 2013, c. 80, §3 (AMD).]
6.  Sale of interception devices prohibited.  A person who sells, exchanges, delivers, barters, gives or furnishes or possesses with an intent to sell any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus designed or commonly used for the interception of wire or oral communications as defined in this chapter is guilty of a Class B crime. This subsection shall not include devices manufactured under written contract for sale to common carriers, law enforcement agencies and the Department of Corrections, provided that the production of any such device shall not have commenced prior to the signing of the contract by both parties.  
[PL 1987, c. 680, §4 (AMD).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1973, c. 561 (NEW). PL 1979, c. 663, §§95-100 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 680, §§2-4 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 80, §§2, 3 (AMD). RR 2023, c. 2, Pt. D, §50 (COR).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1993–2022 · leading case: Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 1993). · cites it 6× “§ 2511 (l)(a) and 15 M.R.S.A. § 710(1). 2 The court also held that counsel retained by the CAR defendants, defendants Richard E.”
Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin, 2014 ME 70 (Me. 2014). · cites it 2× “The Admissibility of Glenn’s Telephone Recordings [¶ 16] Cristie argues that Glenn violated the Interception of Wire and Oral Communications Act, 15 M.R.S. § 710, when he intentionally recorded, and disclosed to others, phone conversations between Crist-ie and the parties’ minor…”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “§§ 15:1303, 15:1312 (West 1992); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 710, 711 (West 1998); Md.”
Pratt v. Securus Tech. Inc (D. Me. 2021). “3d 9 , 23 (1st Cir. 2003)). “Instead, the ‘conduct or the causing of the result must have been the person’s conscious objective.”
Pratt v. Securus Tech. Inc (D. Me. 2021). “§ 2511 (1)(a); 15 M.R.S.A. § 710(1). The First Circuit has clarified that the intent requirement “means more than that one voluntarily engaged in conduct or caused a result.”
Archer v. Androscoggin Cnty. (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “It is also a Class C crime for a person to "[i]ntentionally or knowingly disclose[] or attempt[] to disclose to any person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 710(1) — 5 cases
Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 1993). “§ 2511 (l)(a) and 15 M.R.S.A. § 710(1). 2 The court also held that counsel retained by the CAR defendants, defendants Richard E.”
Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin, 2014 ME 70 (Me. 2014). “The Admissibility of Glenn’s Telephone Recordings [¶ 16] Cristie argues that Glenn violated the Interception of Wire and Oral Communications Act, 15 M.R.S. § 710, when he intentionally recorded, and disclosed to others, phone conversations between Crist-ie and the parties’ minor…”
Pratt v. Securus Tech. Inc (D. Me. 2021). “3d 9 , 23 (1st Cir. 2003)). “Instead, the ‘conduct or the causing of the result must have been the person’s conscious objective.”
Pratt v. Securus Tech. Inc (D. Me. 2021). “§ 2511 (1)(a); 15 M.R.S.A. § 710(1). The First Circuit has clarified that the intent requirement “means more than that one voluntarily engaged in conduct or caused a result.”
Archer v. Androscoggin Cnty. (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “It is also a Class C crime for a person to "[i]ntentionally or knowingly disclose[] or attempt[] to disclose to any person the contents of any wire or oral communication, knowing that the information was obtained through interception.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 710(3)(A) — 1 case
Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 1993). “§ 2511 (l)(a) and 15 M.R.S.A. § 710(1). 2 The court also held that counsel retained by the CAR defendants, defendants Richard E.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 710(8)(A) — 1 case
Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271 (1st Cir. 1993). “§ 2511 (l)(a) and 15 M.R.S.A. § 710(1). 2 The court also held that counsel retained by the CAR defendants, defendants Richard E.”
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.