Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 (2026)

Acts not prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is not unlawful pursuant to the Security of Communications Act for: 1. 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, oral or electronic 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. Said communication common carriers shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks; or 2. an officer, employee, or agent of any communication common carrier or other person authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to a law enforcement officer who is authorized to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; or 3. an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the Commission in the enforcement of Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information obtained; or 4. a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception; or 5. a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication when such person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal act; or 6. a communication common carrier or an officer, agent, or employee thereof, or a person under contract with a communication common carrier, in the normal course of the business of the communication common carrier bidding upon contracts with or in the course of doing business with the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof, in the normal course of the activities of said entities, to send through the mail, send or carry in interstate or foreign commerce, manufacture, assemble, possess, or sell any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of such device renders the device primarily useful for the purpose of the illegal interception of wire, oral or electronic communications; or 7. an officer or employee of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to monitor any wire, oral or electronic communication where an incarcerated inmate is a party to that communication, if the inmate is given prior and conspicuous notice of the surveillance or monitoring. Added by Laws 1982, c. 343, § 4. Amended by Laws 1983, c. 105, § 1, emerg. eff. May 10, 1983; Laws 1989, c. 216, § 3, eff. Nov. 1, 1989.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1990–2014 · leading case: James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 810 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1991).
James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 810 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1991). · cites it 2× “Throughout James' examination of Green and Zitterkob, who were called as adverse witnesses in James' case in chief, counsel examined Green and Zitterkob about these recorded statements, and neither denied making the statements. Therefore, introduction of the tapes under the…”
Arnold v. State, 803 P.2d 1145 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 13 O.S.Supp. 1982, §§ 176.4, 176.6. The record is somewhat contradictory on the issue of consent, and not as fully developed *1152 as it might be.”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “52(B)(4) (2006); Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4 (4) (2002); S.”
Johnson v. State, 911 P.2d 918 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). “13 O.S.1991, §§ 176.4(4)-(5), 176.6. See also Arnold, 803 P.”
State v. Marcum, 319 P.3d 681 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014). “13 O.S.2011, § 176.4. ¶15 Addressing only the narrow question before us, Marcum has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records seized from U.”
State v. Marcum, 2014 OK CR 1 (Okla. Crim. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “13 O.S.2011, § 176.4. ¶15 Addressing only the narrow question before us, Marcum has not demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy in the records seized from U.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4(4) — 1 case
Johnson v. State, 911 P.2d 918 (Okla. Crim. App. 1996). “13 O.S.1991, §§ 176.4(4)-(5), 176.6. See also Arnold, 803 P.”
— Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4(5) — 1 case
James v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 810 P.2d 365 (Okla. 1991). “Throughout James' examination of Green and Zitterkob, who were called as adverse witnesses in James' case in chief, counsel examined Green and Zitterkob about these recorded statements, and neither denied making the statements. Therefore, introduction of the tapes under the…”
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.