U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 119— WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

18 U.S.C. § 2522

Enforcement of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Enforcement by Court Issuing Surveillance Order.—If a court authorizing an interception under this chapter, a State statute, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or authorizing use of a pen register or a trap and trace device under chapter 206 or a State statute finds that a telecommunications carrier has failed to comply with the requirements of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, the court may, in accordance with section 108 of such Act, direct that the carrier comply forthwith and may direct that a provider of support services to the carrier or the manufacturer of the carrier’s transmission or switching equipment furnish forthwith modifications necessary for the carrier to comply.(b)Enforcement Upon Application by Attorney General.—The Attorney General may, in a civil action in the appropriate United States district court, obtain an order, in accordance with section 108 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, directing that a telecommunications carrier, a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or switching equipment, or a provider of telecommunications support services comply with such Act.(c)Civil Penalty.—(1)In general.—A court issuing an order under this section against a telecommunications carrier, a manufacturer of telecommunications transmission or switching equipment, or a provider of telecommunications support services may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per day for each day in violation after the issuance of the order or after such future date as the court may specify.(2)Considerations.—In determining whether to impose a civil penalty and in determining its amount, the court shall take into account—(A) the nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation;(B) the violator’s ability to pay, the violator’s good faith efforts to comply in a timely manner, any effect on the violator’s ability to continue to do business, the degree of culpability, and the length of any delay in undertaking efforts to comply; and(C) such other matters as justice may require.(d)Definitions.—As used in this section, the terms defined in section 102 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act have the meanings provided, respectively, in such section.(Added Pub. L. 103–414, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4289.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 95–511, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1783, which is classified principally to chapter 36 (§ 1801 et seq.) of Title 50, War and National Defense. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1801 of Title 50 and Tables.

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is title I of Pub. L. 103–414, Oct. 25, 1994, 108 Stat. 4279, which is classified generally to subchapter I (§ 1001 et seq.) of chapter 9 of Title 47, Telecommunications. Sections 102 and 108 of the Act are classified to sections 1001 and 1007, respectively, of Title 47. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1001 of Title 47 and Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012). “Bistline later pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522 . His guidelines range, as noted above, was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment.”
Commonwealth v. Miller, 787 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). “¶2 On July 14, 1997, Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of minors, 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(1), in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.”
United States v. Eddie Eugene Norris, 159 F.3d 926 (5th Cir. 1998). “1 This recommendation reflected a base offense level of 17 for ten grouped counts of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(2) (U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.”
United States v. David Gary Gawthrop, 310 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2002). “On October 13, 2000, an Information was filed in the Eastern District of Michigan charging Gawthrop with knowingly receiving child pornography over the Internet during July 1999, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(2). On December 5, 2000, he waived indictment and pled guilty…”
United States v. Leonard, 64 M.J. 381 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “Thus, it was appropriate for the military judge to look to 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(2) to determine the maximum penalty.”
Kroh v. Kroh, 567 S.E.2d 760 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 15A-287; see also 18 U.S.C.A. § 2522 (2)(d). As to the defense of consent, Teresa Kroh first contends that her own consent to the interception of Thomas Kroh’s communications precludes his action under the Electronic Surveillance Act.”
United States v. Moriarty, 962 F. Supp. 217 (D. Mass. 1997). “) Interestingly enough, by proffering an example, the Government seeks to provide its own definition of “access,” since neither Title II nor Title I of the ECPA, on which Title II relies for its definitions (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 2522 (d) and 2711), defines the term.”
United States Telecom Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 227 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2000). “Although carriers failing to meet CALEA’s requirements may incur civil fines of up to $10,000 a day, see 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (c), the Act establishes a safe harbor under which carriers that comply with the accepted industry standards will be deemed in compliance with the statute,…”
United States v. Richard Bistline, 605 F. App'x 529 (6th Cir. 2015). “Richard Bistline pled guilty to knowingly possessing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522 . He now challenges his sentence of one year and one day in prison.”
United States v. David Turner, 687 F. App'x 520 (6th Cir. 2017). “§ 2423 (b); and (4) distributing a visual depiction of a real minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(2). Turner pleaded guilty to all four counts with no plea agreement.”
United States v. Robert Elliott, 110 F.4th 974 (7th Cir. 2024). “§ 2422 (b); five counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(2); and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.”
United States v. Marco Barraza (8th Cir. 2021). “2011) (discussing the elements of receipt under 18 U.S.C. § 2522 (a)(2)). In addition, we conclude that the district court did not impose an unreasonable sentence.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.