1

I am looking for a case where a California appellate court made a factual analysis if the state's confidential communications statutes, Pen. Code § 632, et seq., was applicable where the call was too brief to convey anything other than basic courtesies, relayed no personal information or any other substantial information.

My recollection is that it was a state court, and not a district court, and that it was not the state Supreme Court's opinion, but rather that of an appellate court (not appellate division of a lower court).

What case is this?


MY RESEARCH (UNSUCCESSFUL UNEARTHING) SO FAR

The closest factual case discussed was

(Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 844, 847) And the Supreme Court one of it as follows:

"The Court of Appeal did not address LoanMe's additional contentions that its activation of a beep tone gave Smith notice that their conversation was being recorded, and that by remaining on the call, Smith consented to having the call recorded. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand the cause to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion, including consideration of these arguments as may be appropriate." (Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 183, 203)

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .