Rhode Island General Laws

R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-10 (2026)

Disclosure and use of intercepted wire or oral communications

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section RI-LEGwebserver.rilegislature.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from them, may disclose the contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure.

(b) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication or evidence derived from them may use the contents to the extent that their use is appropriate to the proper performance of his or her official duties.

(c) Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any information concerning a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from them intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter may disclose the contents of that communication or the derivative evidence while giving testimony under oath or affirmation in any criminal proceeding in any court of the United States or of this or any other state or in any federal or state grand jury proceeding.

(d) No otherwise privileged wire, electronic, or oral communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1970–2007 · leading case: State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981).
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981). · cites it 5× ““[T]he legislature clearly intended, in enacting § 12-5.1-10, to establish the precise circumstances under which intercepted oral or wire communications may be disclosed.”
State v. Oster, 922 A.2d 151 (R.I. 2007). · cites it 3× “Section 12-5.1-10 states in pertinent part: "(b) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication * * * may use the contents to the extent that their…”
State v. Ricci, 268 A.2d 692 (R.I. 1970). · cites it 3× “Section 12-5.1-10 prohibits the disclosure of such evidence except under certain enumerated circumstances and declares the privileged nature of such communications other than is in the statute provided.”
State v. Campbell, 528 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1987). · cites it 2× “1-8(a) does require the sealing of the recordings made of intercepted conversations, it clearly provides that “[duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of § 12-5.1-10 for investigations.” One of the sets of…”
Walden v. City of Providence, 495 F. Supp. 2d 245 (D.R.I. 2007). “Defendants argue that the only conceivable violation of this statute would be if they had disclosed the intercepted communications, in violation of § 12-5.1-10, something which has not been alleged here.”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-10(a): 2 cases
State v. Oster, 922 A.2d 151 (R.I. 2007). “Section 12-5.1-10 states in pertinent part: "(b) Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication * * * may use the contents to the extent that their…”
State v. Campbell, 528 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1987). “1-8(a) does require the sealing of the recordings made of intercepted conversations, it clearly provides that “[duplicate recordings may be made for use or disclosure pursuant to the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of § 12-5.1-10 for investigations.” One of the sets of…”
R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-10(c): 1 case
State v. Ahmadjian, 438 A.2d 1070 (R.I. 1981). ““[T]he legislature clearly intended, in enacting § 12-5.1-10, to establish the precise circumstances under which intercepted oral or wire communications may be disclosed.”
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.