CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Relevance
......Evid. Affected by Extrinsic Policies
.........Eavesdropping Evidence
29 Cards On This Topic:

Eavesdropping evidence generally not admissible.

Eavesdropping statute.

Family Law judge may include an order permitting victim of domestic violence to record any prohibited communication made by the perpetrator.

Wiretap evidence from D’s cell phones properly suppressed where facially insufficient application had no relation to current investigation or any of Ds involved.

Airline's conduct did not constitute interception of an electronic communication in violation of Wiretap Act when it viewed employee's secure website; "intercept" is acquisition at time of transmission.

Family member may intercept another's phone conversations by use of extension phone in family home under federal wiretapping exemption generally covering business extensions.

Pen. Code section 631 is preempted by federal law.

In Mexican/US drug trafficking case, record supported government's show of necessity in affidavits supporting wiretapping applications.

Police station recording of D's conversations with accomplices did not violate D's 4th Amend. rights as he had no expectation of privacy while held pretrial in jail.

Excerpts of taped jailhouse conversations properly admitted and trial court not required to consider each individually.

A conversation is confidential if a party to that conversation has an objectively reasonable expectation it is not being overheard or recorded.

Interspousal wiretapping evidence must be excluded under federal Omnibus Crime Control Act; no implied exceptions for family members wiretapping family phone.

In a criminal proceeding, a confidential communication recorded without the consent of all parties to the communication is admissible if relevant and not subject to exclusion under the U.S. Constitution.

SPB's finding girlfriend recorded phone conversations with fired worker at DOJ's direction in connection with a crim. investigation was supported by substantial evidence–conversations were admissible at admin. hearing.

No community of interest where determining whether an individual P has an objectively reasonable expectation that his/her phone conversation will not be recorded is a question of fact subject to individualized proof.

Convicted murderer serving LWOP loses eavesdropping claim against correctional officers where he failed to allege facts showing he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a medical treatment room where an officer was present.

Although court erred in finding D2 lacked standing to suppress wiretap conversations, evidence not suppressed where content unrelated to specific reason warrant issued.

PC 647, prohibiting eavesdropping on confidential communication, applies even if the unannounced listener is employed by the same corporate entity as the known participant in the conversation; SA for corp. reversed.

"Judicial overkill" to dismiss case b/c of DOJ agents' intentional eavesdropping on Ds and counsel—exclusion of overheard communications and any derivative evidence flowing therefrom is the appropriate remedy.

Wiretaps of Ds' cell phones, targeting drug trafficking and later used for non-targeted, gang-related murder plot, were obtained legally and minimized per relevant statutes; no error and no violation of 1988 Wiretap Act.

Trial court did not err by denying D's motion to suppress the evidence re Yahoo! chat dialogues because the communications were not "confidential communications," and therefore, were not protected by PC 632.

Wiretap evidence is subject to normal rule that party seeking exclusion must object or move to suppress at trial, or claims forfeited on appeal.

Motion to suppress properly denied where D impliedly consented to recording of his calls to girlfriend from jail, as there was an announced, blanket policy of recording all outgoing calls by jail inmates.

No error in admitting D’s confession to family in secretly-recorded phone call where D initiated call and made stmts of his own free will, not motivated by desire for leniency, but solely to obtain emotional support from family.

Good faith exception doesn't apply to motion to suppress unlawfully obtained Cal. wiretap evidence; evidence unlawfully obtained as orders failed to I.D. anyone targeted by wiretaps; DA must disclose D's stmts so intercepted.

Use of illegal recording of phone conversation to refresh recollection of participant permissible; recording itself inadmissible.

D merely activated tape recorder during testing of equipment, "by chance" recording confidential communication, and equipment installer turned tape over to DA; case remanded.

Surreptitious taping of business meeting attended by numerous people admissible; communications not confidential.

Hotel clerk's continued phone eavesdropping after hearing mention of gun not willful as it was not done with bad purpose or without justifiable excuse.