THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.539 Divulging contents of messages.
Sec. 539.
Divulging contents of messages—Any person connected with a telegraph, telephone or messenger company, incorporated or unincorporated, operating a line of telegraph or telephone, or engaged in the business of receiving and delivering messages in this state, in any capacity, who wilfully divulges the contents or the nature of the contents of a communication entrusted to him for transmission or delivery, or who wilfully refuses or neglects to transmit or deliver the same, or who wilfully delays the transmission or delivery of the same, or who wilfully forges the name of the receiver to any receipt for any such message or communication or article of value entrusted to him by such company, with a view to injure, deceive or defraud the sender or intended receiver thereof, or any such telephone, telegraph or messenger company or to benefit himself or any other person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.539
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 1 of Act 68 of 1853, being CL 1857, § 5912; CL 1871, § 7768; How., § 9357; CL 1897, § 11386; CL 1915, § 15104; CL 1929, § 17047; and Act 187 of 1901.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case:
Lewis v. LeGrow, 670 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
Lewis v. LeGrow, 670 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “539: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonable [sic] expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to…”
Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The trial court ruled that such participant recording is not prohibited, and, therefore, dismissed by summary judgment plaintiff's civil suit based upon the statute.”
People v. Warner, 258 N.W.2d 385 (Mich. 1977).
· cites it 4× “; MCLA 750.539 et seq.; MSA 28.807 et seq. Thus, defendant argues, the illegally obtained information was inadmissible, and under the `fruit of the poisonous tree' doctrine, Sergeant Baylis could not legally use that information.”
Gillespie v. City of Battle Creek, 100 F. Supp. 3d 623 (W.D. Mich. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 2520 (a); 1 Count 5, violation of Michigan’s Eavesdropping statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539 et seq.; Count 6, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion; Count 7, invasion of privacy/embarrassing private facts; Count 8, negligent infliction of emotional distress; and…”
Gamrat v. Allard, 320 F. Supp. 3d 927 (W.D. Mich. 2018).
“§ 750.539 et seq. , by, among other things, using a device to eavesdrop on Gamrat's private conversations, tapping or accessing without authorization an electronic medium containing Gamrat's communication, and disseminating an illegally-obtained recording of Gamrat's…”
Dickerson v. Raphael, 564 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “This appeal presents issues under the Michigan eavesdropping statutes, MCL 750.539 et *188 seq.; MSA 28.807 et seq.”
Williams v. Williams, 581 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“(the federal wiretapping act), the Michigan eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539 et seq.; MSA 28.807 et seq.,and the common-law tort of invasion of privacy.”
Young v. Young, 536 N.W.2d 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“In her complaint, plaintiff alleged violations of the federal wiretapping act, 1 the *449 Michigan eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539 et seq.; MSA 28.807 et seq., and the common-law tort of invasion of privacy.”
Ferrara v. Detroit Free Press, Inc., 52 F. App'x 229 (6th Cir. 2002).
“§§ 2510-2522 , as well as Michigan’s eavesdropping statute, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.539 -539Í, when he recorded telephone conversations between them without her knowledge.”
Quinn v. Griffith, 515 F. App'x 543 (6th Cir. 2013).
“Defendants also challenge the district court’s denial of their motion for leave to file a counterclaim against Quinn asserting that she violated Michigan’s eavesdropping statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539 et seq., which has been interpreted to create a civil right of action.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539(e) — 1 case
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.