Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2933 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51 (2026)

Wiretapping, electronic surveillance definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
April 9, 2025
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 531 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

As used in sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code:

(A) "Wire communication" means an aural transfer that is made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wires or similar methods of connecting the point of origin of the communication and the point of reception of the communication, including the use of a method of connecting the point of origin and the point of reception of the communication in a switching station, if the facilities are furnished or operated by a person engaged in providing or operating the facilities for the transmission of communications. "Wire communication" includes an electronic storage of a wire communication.

(B) "Oral communication" means an oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation. "Oral communication" does not include an electronic communication.

(C) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication through the use of an interception device.

(D) "Interception device" means an electronic, mechanical, or other device or apparatus that can be used to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. "Interception device" does not mean any of the following:

(1) A telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment, or facility, or any of its components, if the instrument, equipment, facility, or component is any of the following:

(a) Furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business;

(b) Furnished by a subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of a provider of wire or electronic communication service and used in the ordinary course of that subscriber's or user's business;

(c) Being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of the officer's duties that do not involve the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.

(2) A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal.

(E) "Investigative officer" means any of the following:

(1) An officer of this state or a political subdivision of this state, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations or to make arrests for a designated offense;

(2) A person described in divisions (A)(11)(a) and (b) of section 2901.01 of the Revised Code;

(3) An attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of a designated offense;

(4) A secret service officer appointed pursuant to section 309.07 of the Revised Code;

(5) An officer of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision of a state who is authorized to conduct investigations pursuant to the "Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986," 100 Stat. 1848-1857, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 (1986), as amended.

(F) "Interception warrant" means a court order that authorizes the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications and that is issued pursuant to sections 2933.53 to 2933.56 of the Revised Code.

(G) "Contents," when used with respect to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of the communication.

(H) "Communications common carrier" means a person who is engaged as a common carrier for hire in intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications by wire, radio, or radio transmission of energy. "Communications common carrier" does not include, to the extent that the person is engaged in radio broadcasting, a person engaged in radio broadcasting.

(I) "Designated offense" means any of the following:

(1) A felony violation of section 1315.53, 1315.55, 2903.01, 2903.02, 2903.11, 2905.01, 2905.02, 2905.11, 2905.22, 2905.32, 2907.02, 2907.21, 2907.22, 2909.02, 2909.03, 2909.04, 2909.22, 2909.23, 2909.24, 2909.26, 2909.27, 2909.28, 2909.29, 2911.01, 2911.02, 2911.11, 2911.12, 2913.02, 2913.04, 2913.42, 2913.51, 2915.02, 2915.03, 2917.01, 2917.02, 2921.02, 2921.03, 2921.04, 2921.32, 2921.34, 2923.20, 2923.32, 2925.03, 2925.04, 2925.05, or 2925.06 or of division (B) of section 2915.05 or of division (E) or (G) of section 3772.99 of the Revised Code;

(2) A violation of section 2919.23 of the Revised Code that, had it occurred prior to July 1, 1996, would have been a violation of section 2905.04 of the Revised Code as it existed prior to that date;

(3) A felony violation of section 2925.11 of the Revised Code that is not a minor drug possession offense, as defined in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code;

(4) Complicity in the commission of a felony violation of a section listed in division (I)(1), (2), or (3) of this section;

(5) An attempt to commit, or conspiracy in the commission of, a felony violation of a section listed in division (I)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, if the attempt or conspiracy is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year.

(J) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception of the communication was directed.

(K) "Person" means a person, as defined in section 1.59 of the Revised Code, or a governmental officer, employee, or entity.

(L) "Special need" means a showing that a licensed physician, licensed practicing psychologist, attorney, practicing cleric, journalist, or either spouse is personally engaging in continuing criminal activity, was engaged in continuing criminal activity over a period of time, or is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a designated offense, or a showing that specified public facilities are being regularly used by someone who is personally engaging in continuing criminal activity, was engaged in continuing criminal activity over a period of time, or is committing, has committed, or is about to commit, a designated offense.

(M) "Journalist" means a person engaged in, connected with, or employed by, any news media, including a newspaper, magazine, press association, news agency, or wire service, a radio or television station, or a similar media, for the purpose of gathering, processing, transmitting, compiling, editing, or disseminating news for the general public.

(N) "Electronic communication" means a transfer of a sign, signal, writing, image, sound, datum, or intelligence of any nature that is transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" does not mean any of the following:

(1) A wire or oral communication;

(2) A communication made through a tone-only paging device;

(3) A communication from an electronic or mechanical tracking device that permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object.

(O) "User" means a person or entity that uses an electronic communication service and is duly authorized by the provider of the service to engage in the use of the electronic communication service.

(P) "Electronic communications system" means a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical facility for the transmission of electronic communications, and a computer facility or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of electronic communications.

(Q) "Electronic communication service" means a service that provides to users of the service the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications.

(R) "Readily accessible to the general public" means, with respect to a radio communication, that the communication is none of the following:

(1) Scrambled or encrypted;

(2) Transmitted using a modulation technique, the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication;

(3) Carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission;

(4) Transmitted over a communications system provided by a communications common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication;

(5) Transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 25, subpart D, E, or F of part 74, or part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, as those provisions existed on July 1, 1996, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio.

(S) "Electronic storage" means a temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication that is incidental to the electronic transmission of the communication, and a storage of a wire or electronic communication by an electronic communication service for the purpose of backup protection of the communication.

(T) "Aural transfer" means a transfer containing the human voice at a point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception.

(U) "Pen register" means a device that records or decodes electronic impulses that identify the numbers dialed, pulsed, or otherwise transmitted on telephone lines to which the device is attached.

(V) "Trap and trace device" means a device that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number of an instrument or device from which a wire communication or electronic communication was transmitted but that does not intercept the contents of the wire communication or electronic communication.

(W) "Judge of a court of common pleas" means a judge of that court who is elected or appointed as a judge of general jurisdiction or as a judge who exercises both general jurisdiction and probate, domestic relations, or juvenile jurisdiction. "Judge of a court of common pleas" does not mean a judge of that court who is elected or appointed specifically as a probate, domestic relations, or juvenile judge.

(X) "Electronic user data" means any data or records that are stored, collected, used, or safeguarded by a service or program that stores electronic data. This includes data stored on a computer, computer network, or computer system.

(Y) "Remote computing service" means the provision of computer storage or processing services to the public through an electronic communication service.

Last updated February 4, 2025 at 4:44 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2023 · leading case: State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 21× “* * *” Therefore, in Larabee , the state urged that the provisions of R.C. 2933.51 and 2933.52 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the intentional interception of cellular and “radio” telephone communications, that there exists no room for any other interpretation of Ohio law,…”
Javier Luis v. Joseph Zang, 833 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “§ 2510 (4)-(5) with Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.51 (C)-(D). Thus, for the same reasons that Luis’s allegations state a claim for relief under 18 U.”
State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 7× “I PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS In proposition of law I, defendant argues that FBI tunnel microphones and recorders installed during the siege, which intercepted and recorded inmate conversations, violated inmates’ rights to private communications under R.C. 2933.51 et seq. as it…”
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 12× “R.C. 2933.51. Furthermore, the warrants in this case carried a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof was on the Appellees to prove that the warrants and searches violated the Fourth Amendment or wiretap statutes.”
State v. Raber, 938 N.E.2d 1060 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “1 Specifically, she argues that the state did not show that it had obtained the text messages in compliance with the warrant requirements of R.C. 2933.51 et seq. According to Raber, the state needed to obtain an interception warrant for electronic communications in order to…”
State v. Robb, 2000 Ohio 275 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 7× “I PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS {¶ 40} In proposition of law I, defendant argues that FBI tunnel microphones and recorders installed during the siege, which intercepted and recorded inmate conversations, violated inmates’ rights to private communications under R.C. 2933.51 et seq.…”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “02 (2); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2933.51(B); Texas Penal Code § 16.”
State v. Nohra, 2022 Ohio 3115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 17× “Nohra presented a presently existing set of facts that renders Ohio’s wiretapping statute, R.C. 2933.51 et seq., as applied to the instant case, unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St. 3d 448 (Ohio 2008). “{¶ 106} Were argues that the state was not allowed to intercept the inmates’ conversations without obtaining advance consent from some party to the interception or obtaining a warrant as required by former R.C. 2933.51 et seq., Am.Sub. S.B. No. 222,141 Ohio Laws, Part I, 457.”
State v. Pippins, 2020 Ohio 503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “{¶ 68} R.C. 2933.51 through 2933.66 set forth the procedure in Ohio for wiretapping investigations.”
United States v. Upton, 763 F. Supp. 232 (S.D. Ohio 1991). · cites it 6× “§§ 2510 , 2511 and Ohio Rev.Code §§ 2933.51, et seq. II. Mike Spiert, a detective with the Franklin County Sheriffs Department, identified government’s exhibit 1 as a copy of the search warrant which he prepared upon the advice of an assistant county prosecutor.”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “(2006); Ohio Rev.Code § 2933.51, et. seq. (2006); Okla.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(A) — 3 cases
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). “* * *” Therefore, in Larabee , the state urged that the provisions of R.C. 2933.51 and 2933.52 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the intentional interception of cellular and “radio” telephone communications, that there exists no room for any other interpretation of Ohio law,…”
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “R.C. 2933.51. Furthermore, the warrants in this case carried a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof was on the Appellees to prove that the warrants and searches violated the Fourth Amendment or wiretap statutes.”
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(B) — 9 cases
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). “* * *” Therefore, in Larabee , the state urged that the provisions of R.C. 2933.51 and 2933.52 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the intentional interception of cellular and “radio” telephone communications, that there exists no room for any other interpretation of Ohio law,…”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012). “02 (2); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2933.51(B); Texas Penal Code § 16.”
State v. Nohra, 2022 Ohio 3115 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Nohra presented a presently existing set of facts that renders Ohio’s wiretapping statute, R.C. 2933.51 et seq., as applied to the instant case, unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
State v. Robb, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59 (Ohio 2000). “I PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS In proposition of law I, defendant argues that FBI tunnel microphones and recorders installed during the siege, which intercepted and recorded inmate conversations, violated inmates’ rights to private communications under R.C. 2933.51 et seq. as it…”
State v. Robb, 2000 Ohio 275 (Ohio 2000). “I PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS {¶ 40} In proposition of law I, defendant argues that FBI tunnel microphones and recorders installed during the siege, which intercepted and recorded inmate conversations, violated inmates’ rights to private communications under R.C. 2933.51 et seq.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(C) — 6 cases
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). “* * *” Therefore, in Larabee , the state urged that the provisions of R.C. 2933.51 and 2933.52 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the intentional interception of cellular and “radio” telephone communications, that there exists no room for any other interpretation of Ohio law,…”
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “R.C. 2933.51. Furthermore, the warrants in this case carried a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof was on the Appellees to prove that the warrants and searches violated the Fourth Amendment or wiretap statutes.”
State v. Nettles (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 768 (Ohio 2020).
State v. Myers, 586 N.E.2d 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Nettles, 2018 Ohio 4908 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(D) — 3 cases
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994). “* * *” Therefore, in Larabee , the state urged that the provisions of R.C. 2933.51 and 2933.52 clearly and unambiguously prohibit the intentional interception of cellular and “radio” telephone communications, that there exists no room for any other interpretation of Ohio law,…”
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “R.C. 2933.51. Furthermore, the warrants in this case carried a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof was on the Appellees to prove that the warrants and searches violated the Fourth Amendment or wiretap statutes.”
State v. Bidinost, 1994 Ohio 465 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(G) — 1 case
John H. Nix v. Patrick J. O'Malley Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, 160 F.3d 343 (6th Cir. 1998).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(J) — 2 cases
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “R.C. 2933.51. Furthermore, the warrants in this case carried a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof was on the Appellees to prove that the warrants and searches violated the Fourth Amendment or wiretap statutes.”
State v. Davies, 763 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(N) — 1 case
State v. Wallace, 2012 Ohio 6270 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “R.C. 2933.51. Furthermore, the warrants in this case carried a presumption of validity, and the burden of proof was on the Appellees to prove that the warrants and searches violated the Fourth Amendment or wiretap statutes.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(T) — 1 case
State v. Nettles, 2018 Ohio 4908 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51(W) — 1 case
State v. Pippins, 2020 Ohio 503 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 68} R.C. 2933.51 through 2933.66 set forth the procedure in Ohio for wiretapping investigations.”
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.