Caro v. Weintraub

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that speaker had no subjective expectation of privacy where he spoke in presence of others and knew they could hear his statements
• noting that Congress could have defined the exception in terms of interceptions resulting in a tortious or criminal act but did not
• holding \that a cause of action under § 2511(2)(d) requires that the interceptor intend to commit a crime or tort independent of the act of recording itself\ (emphasis added)
• holding 19 that invasion of privacy does not qualify for crime-tort exception because the “tort . . . 20 occurs through the act of interception itself” and “[n]othing more is required after the 21 interception is made for liability to attach based on this tort.”
• eschewing a hierarchy of intent and observing merely that “if, at the time of the recording, the offender plans to use the recording to harm the other party to the conversation, a civil cause of action exists. . . .”
• “At the time of the 27 recording the offender must intend to use the recording to commit a criminal or 28 tortious act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).