Source or Prior Law:

21-959, 21-960, 21-961.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Discussed in electronic surveillance section of symposium on criminal law revision, P. Lawrence Peterson, 18 K.L.R. 780, 804 (1970).

"Computers in the Private Sector: Right to Informational Privacy for the Consumer," John Barlow Spear, 22 W.L.J. 469, 486 (1983).

"Criminal Law: Informant Bugging—When is a Private Conversation Really Private?" Danton B. Rice, 24 W.L.J. 376 (1985).

"Encoded Confidences: Electronic Mail, the Internet, and the Attorney-Client Privilege," William P. Matthews, 45 K.L.R. 273 (1996).

"Evidence for the family lawyer: Intrafamily wiretapping, the Fifth Amendment and other selected topics," Steve Leben, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 24 (1999).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Breach of privacy; recording of incoming telephone calls by sheriff's office. 93-93.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Privacy of communication protected hereunder not violated by electronic recording where consent of sender alone obtained; admissible evidence. State v. Wigley, 210 Kan. 472, 474, 476, 502 P.2d 819.

2. No violation hereunder by telephone company monitoring its property to protect its interests therein; search warrant based on evidence therefrom legal. State v. Hruska, 219 Kan. 233, 237, 238, 240, 241, 547 P.2d 732.

3. Cited in interpreting consent language in K.S.A. 21-4001(1)(c). State v. Bowman National Security Agency, Inc., 231 Kan. 631, 635, 647 P.2d 1288 (1982).

4. Any party to private conversation may waive right of privacy and consent to electronic interception and recording; nonconsenting party cannot challenge; conviction under K.S.A. 65-4127b. State v. Roudybush, 235 Kan. 834, 844, 686 P.2d 100 (1984).

5. Willful violation of penal statute exclusion in personal injury insurance policy controls on duty to defend issue. MGM, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 253 Kan. 198, 203, 855 P.2d 77 (1993).

6. State law provided private cause of action for contractor's failure to allow detainee unmonitored communication with attorney. Peoples v. CCA Detention Centers, 422 F.3d 1090, 1108 (2005).

7. Surreptitiously accessing and copying communications sent more than six months earlier did not constitute "interception" of a private communication. State v. Brooks, 46 Kan. App. 2d 601, 265 P.3d 1175 (2011).

8. Statutory consent exceptions apply to an inmate's telephone conversation with someone other than the inmate's attorney when the notice of monitoring is given. State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519, 276 P.3d 165 (2012).