Connecticut Statutes

§ 52-570d — Action for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.

Connecticut § 52-570d
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 52Civil Actions
Ch. 925Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses

This text of Connecticut § 52-570d (Action for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d (2026).

Text

(a)No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
(b)The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to:
(1)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re State Police Litigation
888 F. Supp. 1235 (D. Connecticut, 1995)
32 case citations
Marini v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
64 F. Supp. 3d 317 (D. Connecticut, 2014)
14 case citations
Intercity Co. Establishment v. Ahto
13 F. Supp. 2d 253 (D. Connecticut, 1998)
4 case citations
Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp., No. Cv 96 0559591 (Nov. 15, 1996)
1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9940 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1996)
Smith v. Hartford Firefighters, Local 760, No. Cv96-0565304 (Mar. 14, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2050 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Smith v. Hartford Firefighters, No. Cv96-0565304 (Mar. 14, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 2751 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Wvit, Inc. v. Gray, No. Cv 95-0547689 (Oct. 8, 1997)
1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 10193 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1997)
Nardella v. Vachon, No. 542668 (Jan. 7, 1998)
1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 567 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1998)
Smith v. Hartford, No. X07-Cv98-0070792 S (Jul. 14, 2000)
2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 8329 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2000)

Legislative History

(P.A. 90-305; P.A. 19-132, S. 3; P.A. 21-40, S. 51.) History: P.A. 19-132 amended Subsec. (b)(1) by replacing “criminal law enforcement official who in the lawful performance of his duties records telephonic communications” with “law enforcement official or agent of any such official who in the lawful performance of such official or agent's duties, or at the request or direction of such official or agent in the performance of such official or agent's duties, records telephonic communications”; P.A. 21-40 made technical changes in Subsec. (b)(1). Cited. 238 C. 692. Does not apply to rerecording of illegally taped telephone conversation. 47 CA 764. Section does not waive sovereign immunity by force of necessary implication, and Subsecs. (a) and (b) can be read as an implicit waiver of the state's sovereign immunity from liability but not as an implicit waiver of the state's sovereign immunity from suit. 193 CA 576.

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 52-570d, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/52-570d.