Eavesdropping on Extension Phones Illegal, Court Rules

A person who eavesdrops on an extension telephone can be sued for invasion of privacy and prosecuted criminally, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

Basing its ruling on a 1967 state law, the Invasion of Privacy Act, the court by a 4-3 margin for the first time extended prohibitions against the covert use of wiretaps and tape recorders to include extension telephones. The ruling also encompasses people who might eavesdrop using a speaker phone.

“In enacting this statute, the Legislature declared in broad terms its intent to protect the right of privacy of the people of this state from what it perceived as a serious threat to the free exercise of personal liberties,” Justice Stanley Mosk said in the majority opinion.

Similar Rulings

While the high court noted that there have been similar rulings in two other states--Arizona and Florida--the issue is still unsettled there, indicating that California is the first state in the nation to ban covert listening over extension phones.

” . . . Such secret monitoring denies the speaker an important aspect of privacy of communication--the right to control the nature and extent of the firsthand dissemination of his statements,” Mosk wrote.

“Partly because of this factor, the Privacy Act has been read to require the assent of all parties to a communication before another may listen.”

Joined by Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and Justices Joseph P. Grodin and Cruz Reynoso, Mosk added in a footnote that “concerns have been expressed” that the ruling could create “absurd results.” Children, for example, might be able to sue their parents for listening in on their calls.

Presumed Protection

Mosk concluded, however, that “parents presumably would be protected from such lawsuits by the immunity they are afforded when they reasonably and prudently exercise their disciplinary authority.”

Dissenting Justice Otto M. Kaus, while agreeing with Mosk’s basic conclusion, said there was nothing to bar suits by children against parents who listen over extension phones. Kaus was joined in dissent by Justices Malcolm M. Lucas and Allen E. Broussard. (Ribas vs. Clark, S.F. 24757)

The case stemmed from a divorce action between Richard M. Ribas of Santa Clara County and his former wife, Alice. After becoming concerned about the terms of the divorce settlement, she went to the office of a friend, Joan Clark, and telephoned her husband, and asked the friend to listen in on the call.

Later, Alice Ribas filed an action seeking to have the divorce overturned, accusing her ex-husband of fraud. Her friend, Clark, testified at a hearing that during the telephone conversation, Ribas told his wife that he had prevented her from retaining a lawyer.

Although the divorce settlement was not overturned, Richard Ribas sued Clark on a charge of invasion of privacy based on her statements at the court hearing. A trial judge threw out the suit, a decision reversed by the Supreme Court.

Awards Allowable

The statute allows awards of $3,000 to people whose privacy has been invaded, or three times the amount of actual damages resulting from the invasion, whichever is more. It also provides for criminal prosecution with a maximum penalty of a $2,500 fine and one year in prison.

In a second case, the high court unanimously concluded that a drunk driver who causes an accident resulting in multiple injuries can be charged only with a single count of felony drunk driving, and a single count of driving while intoxicated.

The case involved Joan Kathryn Wilkoff, 41, who, with a blood alcohol count of 0.19%, was involved in a four-car collision on Pacific Coast Highway in Huntington Beach in August, 1983, in which one person was killed and five injured.

In addition to being charged with manslaughter in the death of Michelle Salle, a teen-ager, Wilkoff was charged with six counts of felony drunk driving, plus six counts of driving under the influence, two for each of the victims.

Dismissal Motion Denied

The trial court refused Wilkoff’s motion to dismiss 10 of those separate counts, leading to the appeal. Broussard, writing for the court, concluded that Wilkoff can be charged only with manslaughter, plus a count each of felony drunk driving and driving under the influence. (Wilkoff vs. Superior Court, L.A. 31942.)

Broussard noted that if a drunk has one accident, then flees and has another accident, added counts could be charged.

Orange County Deputy Dist. Atty. Randell L. Wilkinson said the office charged the multiple counts hoping that, if there were a conviction, the judge could have given Wilkoff a stiffer sentence--a maximum of nine years. As it is, the maximum she faces is six years in prison.