Wiretap Laws: Exempt Surveillance Areas Explored

Wiretap laws in the United States are governed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, which updated the Federal Wiretap Act of 1968 to include the interception of electronic communications. The ECPA prohibits the intentional interception, use, disclosure, or procurement of wire, oral, or electronic communication. However, there are exceptions to this prohibition, such as law enforcement purposes or with the consent of at least one party.

While the ECPA sets federal standards, individual states also have their own wiretap laws, which may be more restrictive than federal law. For example, some states require the consent of all parties for a recording to be legal, while others only require the consent of one party.

In addition, there are situations where wiretap laws do not apply. For instance, police can record conversations in public areas or with the consent of one of the participants. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and courts have ruled that this applies to oral and electronic communications where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Overall, the applicability of wiretap laws can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the communication being monitored.

Wiretap laws in the US

The ECPA requires only one-party consent for recording conversations, meaning an individual can record their own conversation without violating federal law. However, some states have their own laws that require all-party consent. These include California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

The ECPA also created the Stored Communications Act, which addresses access to stored communications. This Act makes it unlawful to intentionally access stored electronic communications without consent.

Violating the ECPA can result in up to five years in prison and fines of up to $250,000. Victims can also bring civil suits and recover damages.

It is important to note that wiretap laws vary from state to state, and it is essential to understand the specific laws in each state before recording any conversations.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA)

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was passed in 1986 to expand and revise federal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping provisions. It was enacted to promote "the privacy expectations of citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement". The ECPA has three titles:

The ECPA was significantly amended by the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in 1994, the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts in 2006, and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

The ECPA has been criticised for failing to protect all communications and consumer records, mainly because the law is outdated and out of touch with how people currently share, store, and use information. Under the ECPA, it is relatively easy for a government agency to demand that service providers hand over personal consumer data stored on their servers. For example, email stored on a third-party server for more than 180 days is considered by the law to be abandoned, and can be obtained by a law enforcement agency with a written statement certifying that the information is relevant to an investigation, without the need for a warrant or judicial review.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 in response to revelations of widespread privacy violations by the US federal government under President Richard Nixon. FISA establishes procedures for the surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information on domestic soil.

FISA requires federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain authorization for gathering "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism. The law established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants.

FISA initially addressed only electronic surveillance but has since been amended to address the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, physical searches, and business records. FISA establishes procedures for the authorization of electronic surveillance, the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, physical searches, and business records for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.

FISA also created the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a special US Federal court that holds nonpublic sessions to consider issuing search warrants under FISA. Proceedings before the FISC are ex parte, meaning the government is the only party present.

FISA permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios. The first is without a court order, where the President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for a period of one year. This is provided that it is only to acquire foreign intelligence information, that it is solely directed at communications or property controlled exclusively by foreign powers, that there is no substantial likelihood that it will acquire the contents of any communication to which a US person is a party, and that it be conducted only in accordance with defined minimization procedures.

The second scenario is with a court order, where the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISC. This is called traditional intelligence collection, as it is the targeted monitoring of a suspected clandestine operative of a foreign power. Approval of a FISA application requires the court to find probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power inside the US.

FISA also permits the "physical search" of the "premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by" a foreign power. The requirements and procedures are nearly identical to those for electronic surveillance.

Connecticut's wiretap law

The state's eavesdropping law makes it a crime to record a phone conversation without the consent of at least one party to the call. The law defines "intercept" as the intentional overhearing or recording of a wire communication using any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Connecticut's wiretap statute generally prohibits anyone from intercepting wire communications without at least one party's consent or a court order. The statute authorises wiretaps for investigations into state crimes, including gambling, bribery, racketeering, manufacturing and selling narcotics or hallucinogens, and felonies involving violence.

The state's voyeurism law prohibits taking visual images, filming, or recording another person without their consent or knowledge when there is an expectation of privacy. Violation of the state's eavesdropping and voyeurism laws is a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to $5,000.

Connecticut is a "one-party" state, meaning that an individual can record their own conversation without violating the law. However, civil laws apply a different standard, and an individual can bring a civil lawsuit against another person for damages if they record a conversation without obtaining consent from all parties or giving adequate notice about the recording.

Federal wiretap laws set multiple standards based on the nature of the communication sought and the purpose of the interception. Federal law permits states to use their procedures but also allows state lawmakers to set more restrictive rules. Connecticut's wiretap law is more protective of privacy than federal law, and law enforcement personnel in the state do not use all the wiretap techniques that federal law permits.

The Fourth Amendment

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In the context of communication surveillance, the Fourth Amendment requires that the government obtain a warrant before intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. This warrant must be based on probable cause and must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in the context of communication surveillance in several landmark cases:

• In Olmstead v. United States (1928), the Court initially held that wiretapping was not a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as there was no physical trespass on the defendant's property.
• However, in Katz v. United States (1967), the Court overruled Olmstead and held that the Fourth Amendment protects any place where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including conversations.
• In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the Court further clarified that physical invasion is not required for a search to violate the Fourth Amendment if the surveillance reveals information that would otherwise be unavailable without entering a private space.
• More recently, in Carpenter v. United States (2018), the Court ruled that individuals have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their cell-site location information, pushing back on certain mass surveillance activities.

In addition to the Fourth Amendment, federal statutes such as the Wiretap Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act also regulate communication surveillance and set forth procedures for obtaining warrants and protecting the privacy of individuals.

Frequently asked questions