21-4001.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-4001; L. 1992, ch. 239, § 184; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 132; L. 2000, ch. 181, § 7; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Order authorizing eavesdropping, see 22-2514 through 22-2519.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Notes on the Code of Criminal Procedure," Richard H. Seaton and Paul E. Wilson, 39 J.B.A.K. 97, 161 (1970).
Discussed in electronic surveillance section of symposium on criminal law revision, P. Lawrence Peterson, 18 K.L.R. 780, 803, 804 (1970).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law," Robert A. Wason, 32 K.L.R. 395, 422, 423 (1984).
"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).
"To record or not to record," 66 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 4 (1997).
"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).
"There's (Almost) No Place Like Home: Kansas Remains in the Minority on Protecting Animals from Cruelty," Kara Gerwin, 15 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 1, 124 (2005).
Attorney General's Opinions:
Breach of privacy; recording of incoming telephone calls by sheriff's office. 93-93.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Consent obtained from person controlling telephone upon which recording device installed; privacy protected hereunder not violated; admissible evidence. State v. Wigley, 210 Kan. 472, 474, 476, 502 P.2d 819.
2. Statute construed in conjunction with K.S.A. 22-2513; no violation hereunder where telephone company monitors its property to protect its interests therein. State v. Hruska, 219 Kan. 233, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 547 P.2d 732.
3. Subsection (1)(c) refers to owner's consent, not user's consent. State v. Bowman National Security Agency, Inc., 231 Kan. 631, 633, 634, 635, 647 P.2d 1288 (1982).
4. Photographing person in private place with hidden camera is eavesdropping; prohibited hereby. State v. Martin, 232 Kan. 778, 780, 781, 782, 658 P.2d 1024 (1983).
5. 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).
6. Stepfather convicted of eavesdropping by videotaping 16 year old stepdaughter bathing by use of hole in bathroom wall. State v. Liebau, 31 Kan. App. 2d 501, 67 P.3d 156 (2003).
7. 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).
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).
|
|