Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 626A.04 (2026)
Prohibition Of Use As Evidence Of Intercepted Wire, Oral, Or Electronic Communications
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Whenever any wire, oral, or electronic communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court or grand jury if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: State v. Quinn, 436 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1989).
State v. Quinn, 436 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1989). “The Privacy of Communications Act provides otherwise in Minn.Stat. § 626A.04 (1988): Whenever any wire or oral communications has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing,…”
State v. Torgrimson, 637 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). “Torgrim-son contends that (1) the surreptitious taping violates his Fourth Amendment rights, and (2) failure to suppress the statements violates Minn.Stat. § 626A.04 (2000). We affirm. FACTS On December 3, 2000, State Trooper Wade Erickson was dispatched to investigate a report…”
Gilk (D. Minn. 2026). “§ 2515 ) and the Minnesota Privacy in Communications Act (Minn. Stat. § 626A.04). Defendants presented the same or similar argument in support of their TRO motion, and Court rejected it.”
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.