Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302 (2026)

Legislative purpose

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In order to protect the privacy of wire, oral, and electronic communications, to protect the integrity of court and administrative proceedings, to define, on a uniform basis, the circumstances under which a district attorney general may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the interception and use of wire, oral, and electronic communications, to define the circumstances under which a judge in a court of competent jurisdiction may authorize the interception and use of wire, oral and electronic communications, and to prohibit any unauthorized interception or use of those communications, it is necessary for the general assembly to define the circumstances and conditions under which the interception of wire, oral and electronic communications may be lawful. In defining these circumstances, the general assembly seeks to strike a balance between an individual's right to privacy and society's legitimate concern in being protected from criminal activity.

(b) In carrying out illegal activities, criminals often make extensive use of wire, oral and electronic communications. The lawful interception of these communications is an indispensable aid to investigative and law enforcement officials in obtaining evidence of illegal activities. Likewise, it is necessary for the general assembly to safeguard the privacy of innocent persons. Through this part and §§ 39-13-601 - [former] 39-13-603 [repealed], the general assembly seeks to prohibit the unauthorized interception of wire, oral and electronic communications and to prohibit the use of illegally obtained wire, oral and electronic communications as evidence in courts and administrative proceedings. The interception of wire, oral or electronic communications, therefore, when no party to the communications has consented to the interception, should be allowed only under compelling circumstances when authorized and supervised by a court of competent jurisdiction and upon a finding of probable cause. Court authorization and supervision ensures that the interception is made only in narrowly defined circumstances and that the information obtained will not be misused. The privacy rights of Tennessee citizens are further protected by limiting the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications to certain major types of felonies under this code.

Acts 1994, ch. 964, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 312 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 6× “He argues, however, that the reasoning employed by the majority of the federal courts is contrary to the stated legislative purposes in the Tennessee Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994.”

State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2001). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-302(b) (Supp.1996).”

Christopher N. Robinson v. William Fulliton (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “He argues, however, that the reasoning employed by the majority of the federal courts is contrary to the stated legislative purposes in the Tennessee Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994.”

Harold Dean McDaniel v. Kimberly Ruth McDaniel (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “This conclusion is further supported by Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302 (b) which states: (b) In carrying out illegal activities, criminals often make extensive use of wire, oral and electronic communications.”

Sontay v. Rose (M.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 3× “at 85) (citing Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-6-302 (b), 40-6-303(14); and 18 U.”

State of Tennessee v. Ivan Charles Graves (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302 (emphasis added).”

State of Tennessee v. Kristie M. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302 (b). The Act provides for certain exceptions: It is lawful under §§ 39-13-601 – 39-13-603 and title 40, chapter 6, part 3 for a person acting under the color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication, where the person is a party to…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302(b) — 3 cases

State v. Munn, 56 S.W.3d 486 (Tenn. 2001). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-6-302(b) (Supp.1996).”

State of Tennessee v. Ivan Charles Graves (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302 (emphasis added).”

State of Tennessee v. Kristie M. Smith (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-302 (b). The Act provides for certain exceptions: It is lawful under §§ 39-13-601 – 39-13-603 and title 40, chapter 6, part 3 for a person acting under the color of law to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication, where the person is a party to…”

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.