(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter 5.1 of title 12, any person: (1) who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any
other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication;
(2) who willfully discloses or attempts to disclose to any person the contents of
any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know that
the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication
in violation of this section; or (3) who willfully uses or attempts to use the contents
of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know,
that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral
communication in violation of this section; shall be imprisoned for not more than
five (5) years.
(b) The provisions of subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the
contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from
those contents, which has become common knowledge or public information.
(c) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for:
(1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent, or employee of a communication
common carrier, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire, electronic,
or oral communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal
course of his or her employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary
incident to the rendition of his or her service or to the protection of the rights
or property of the carrier of the communication. No communication common carrier shall
utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality
control checks;
(2) A person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication,
where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to
the communication has given prior consent to the interception; or
(3) A person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication,
where the person is a party to the communication, or one of the parties to the communication
has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted
for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in the violation of the
constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing
any other injurious act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case:
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).
· cites it 17× “Therefore, he suggests, he “procure[d] [no] other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” that could have triggered a criminal violation of Rhode Island’s wiretapping statute, § 11-35-21. Because the audio recorder was integrated into the…”
Walden v. City of Providence, 495 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.R.I. 2007).
· cites it 5× “R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 makes it punishable for any person to “wilfully intercept ], attempt[] to intercept, or pro-curen any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication.”
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-35-21(c)(2), as assigned, P.L. 1969, ch.”
State v. Murphy, 323 A.2d 561 (R.I. 1974).
· cites it 2× “1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-35-21 (c) (2), which states that it shall not be unlawful to tap a telephone call when one of the parties to the call has given his prior consent to the tap.”
Unknown, 596 F.3d 38.
· cites it 5× “; Rhode Island’s wiretap laws, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-35-21, 12-5.1-13; and the state’s privacy act, id.”
State v. Thomas Mosley (R.I. 2024).
· cites it 5× “7 Mosley also claims that the trial justice abused his discretion by denying the motion in limine based on the quality of the recording.”
State v. Marklyn Brown (R.I. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Brown moved to suppress the recorded statement he made to his mother at the Providence police station and argued that the officers’ surreptitious recording violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; violated the Rhode Island Constitution; and constituted an…”
State v. Alberto Rivera (R.I. 2019).
“” Regarding the transcript, the trial justice stated that it was his “demand” 4 General Laws 1956 § 11-35-21(c)(2) provides that it is not unlawful for “[a] person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, where that person is a party to…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(a) — 1 case
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).
“Therefore, he suggests, he “procure[d] [no] other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” that could have triggered a criminal violation of Rhode Island’s wiretapping statute, § 11-35-21. Because the audio recorder was integrated into the…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(a)(1) — 2 cases
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).
“Therefore, he suggests, he “procure[d] [no] other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” that could have triggered a criminal violation of Rhode Island’s wiretapping statute, § 11-35-21. Because the audio recorder was integrated into the…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(a)(l) — 1 case
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).
“Therefore, he suggests, he “procure[d] [no] other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” that could have triggered a criminal violation of Rhode Island’s wiretapping statute, § 11-35-21. Because the audio recorder was integrated into the…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981).
“1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 11-35-21(c)(2), as assigned, P.L. 1969, ch.”
State v. Thomas Mosley (R.I. 2024).
“7 Mosley also claims that the trial justice abused his discretion by denying the motion in limine based on the quality of the recording.”
State v. Alberto Rivera (R.I. 2019).
“” Regarding the transcript, the trial justice stated that it was his “demand” 4 General Laws 1956 § 11-35-21(c)(2) provides that it is not unlawful for “[a] person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, where that person is a party to…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21(c)(3) — 1 case
State v. O'BRIEN, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).
“Therefore, he suggests, he “procure[d] [no] other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire or oral communication” that could have triggered a criminal violation of Rhode Island’s wiretapping statute, § 11-35-21. Because the audio recorder was integrated into 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.