Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-301 (2026)
Short title
✓ current as of May 2026
This part and §§ 39-13-601 - [former] 39-13-603 [repealed] shall be known and may be cited as the "Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994."
Acts 1994, ch. 964, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 2001–2013 · leading case: State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007).
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “(2004); Tenn.Code § 40-6-301, et seq. (2006); Tex.”
State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 40-6-301, et seq., have been violated. 18 U.”
State v. Moore, 309 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “The application must include the following: (1) the identity of the applicant officer and the district attorney general authorizing the application; (2) a full and complete statement of the facts relied upon by the applicant, including details of the offense, a description of…”
State of Tennessee v. Jeffrey Kristopher King & Kasey Lynn King, 437 S.W.3d 856 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “2004) ("The Tennessee Wiretap Law, Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 40-6-301 et seq., parallels the Federal Wiretap Law in prohibiting the unauthorized interception and disclosure of oral communications and in requiring certain procedures to obtain an order.”
Frierson v. Goetz, 227 F. Supp. 2d 889 (M.D. Tenn. 2002). “However, the Federal Wiretap Act was amended in 1994 and, unlike Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-301 et seq., now applies to cordless telephones.”
State v. Rudolph Munn (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-301 et seq. In his first issue, Defendant claim s that c ertain o f his videotap ed statem ents shou ld have been suppressed because they were taped in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and in violation of federal and state statutes regarding…”
State of Tennessee v. Kenneth Miller & Ray Junior Turner (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “The Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-6-301 to -311, allows certain judges to issue orders authorizing interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications upon the application of law enforcement.”
State of Tennessee v. John A. Boatfield (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). “WIRETAPS The defendant argues the state failed to comply with the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-6-301 et seq., and that evidence obtained by law enforcement through electronic interception of the defendant’s telephone calls should…”
Bruce Elliot v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “ANALYSIS The Petitioner contends that his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress the wiretaps of his telephone communications constituted the ineffective assistance of counsel, violating his Sixth Amendment rights, because the relevant applications for wiretaps…”
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.