Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2026)

Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

542.402. Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities. — 1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.400 to 542.422, a person is guilty of a class E felony and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law, if such person:

(1) Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication;

(2) Knowingly uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; provided, however, that nothing in sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall be construed to prohibit the use by law enforcement officers of body microphones and transmitters in undercover investigations for the acquisition of evidence and the protection of law enforcement officers and others working under their direction in such investigations;

(3) Knowingly discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in violation of this subsection; or

(4) Knowingly uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in violation of this subsection.

2. It is not unlawful under the provisions of sections 542.400 to 542.422:

(1) For an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of such communication, however, communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks;

(2) For a person acting under law to intercept a wire or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception;

(3) For a person not acting under law to intercept a wire communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

--------

(L. 1989 H.B. 277, et al. § 2, A.L. 2002 S.B. 712, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491)

Effective 1-01-17

(1998) Communications between a cellular phone and a regular wire phone are wire communications within the purview of the wiretap law. Lee v. Lee, 967 S.W.2d 82 (Mo.App. W.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). · cites it 2× “02 (2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2000); Neb. Rev.”

State v. Barrett, 41 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “Defendant argues that no party to the conversation gave consent to the recording as required by § 542.402. He argues, alternatively, that the tape-recording constituted an interrogation of him without being advised of his Miranda rights.”

Balke v. Ream, 983 S.W.2d 579 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Appellant claimed that such recordings and disclosures were both violations of § 542.402. The petition revealed no further details as to what purpose Respondent may have had for recording the calls other than to say that Respondent’s actions were “willful, wanton and malicious”…”

Lee v. Lee, 967 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “5 Section 542.402 of the Missouri Wiretap Law provides, in pertinent part: Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.”

Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “13 (West 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 542.402 , 542.418 (1996); Mont.”

State v. King, 873 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). “§ 542.402. “Intercept” is defined as “the aural acquisition of the contents of any wire communication through the use of any electronic or mechanical device.”

John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corp., 126 F.4th 1329 (8th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “He alleged nine state law claims against SSM, including violations of the Missouri Wiretap Statute, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (1), the Computer Tampering Act, see Mo.”

Balke v. Ream, 33 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). “Balke filed a petition in May of 1998 seeking damages arising from actions in violation of the Missouri Wiretap Law, specifically § 542.402, which states in pertinent part: 1.”

Ward (W.D. Mo. 2026). · cites it 4× “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 specifically defines illegal wiretapping in relevant part as: (2) Knowingly uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when such device…”

Carothers v. Carothers, 977 S.W.2d 287 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). “2, Pamela alleges that Dennie violated § 542.402. That section provides that an individual is guilty of illegal wiretapping when he or she “[k]now-ingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication…”

Davis v. United Parcel Serv. (E.D. Mo. 2024). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff devotes approximately two pages of his Response in Opposition to a discussion of Missouri’s wiretapping statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 , and the criminal penalties for illegal wiretapping and recording phone conversations.”

Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (W.D. Mo. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 . For the purposes of a Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a right to relief above a speculative a speculative level.”

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.