Warden v. Kahn
California Court of Appeal
1DissentElkington, J.
I respectfully dissent.
As I read our court’s controlling opinion we have, by judicial interpretation, fashioned an innovative penal statute with a coverage unintended by the Legislature. Such a statute was expressly rejected by Congress and is not to be found elsewhere among the states of the nation.
Penal Code section 631 provides: “Any person who, by means of any.. . instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection,[1] whether... inductively,[2] or otherwise, with any. . . telephone wire... or instrument. . ., or who willfully and…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.