Legal Opinion · Dissent

Warden v. Kahn

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 14, 1979No. Civ. 43440Published

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

  1. Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  3. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API