Printable Format22-2517. Unlawful interception of wire or oral communication; evidentiary status of contents. Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee or other authority of this state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of such information would be in violation of this chapter.
History: L. 1974, ch. 150, § 4; L. 1976, ch. 165, § 5; May 8.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Evidence—Distinguishing Between Radio-Telephone and Wire Communications: The Kansas Approach to Cordless Telephone Conversations," Terri L. Savely, 24 W.L.J. 175 (1984).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Sworn testimony of police officers, corroborated by pen register, trap and trace procedures, plus surveillance and intercepted conversations indicated violations of drug laws (K.S.A. 65-4101). U.S. v. Saviano, 843 F.2d 1280 (1988).
2. Cited; whether court had jurisdiction to order pen register and wiretap when component located in adjacent county examined. State v. Gibson, 255 Kan. 474, 480, 874 P.2d 1122 (1994).
3. Information received from defendant's phone conversations in jail did not violate wiretapping status; defendant consented. State v. Andrews, 39 Kan. App. 2d 19, 22, 176 P.3d 245 (2008).