Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Department

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that brief conversation regarding general information that was “inconsequential, non-incriminating and made to a stranger” is “not the kind of communication that the privacy act protects”
• affirming summary judgment of dismissal in “a civil action seeking damages allegedly caused by constitutional and statutory violations of the right to privacy”
• referring to a quotation from the Final Legislative Report as “the express legislative intent” of the act
• citing, inter alia, State v. Fleming, 91 Or.App. 394, 399, 755 P.2d 725 (1988), which held that Oregon's one-party consent statute at issue here governed a call recorded in Oregon to a Washington defendant
• citing, inter alia, State v. Fleming, 91 Or. App. 394, 399, 755 P.2d 725 (1988), which held that Oregon’s one-party consent statute at issue here governed a call recorded in Oregon to a Washington defendant
• courts determine the validity of telephone interception by examining the law of the jurisdiction where interception occurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).