# Ribas v. Clark

> California Supreme Court · March 18, 1985 · 38 Cal. 3d 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9548935

## Case

- **Full name:** RICHARD M. RIBAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOAN CLARK, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 18, 1985
- **Citations:** 38 Cal. 3d 355; 212 Cal. Rptr. 143; 696 P.2d 637; 49 A.L.R. 4th 417; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 264
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Kaus
- **Judges:** Kaus, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 182 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9548935

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that 25 allowing a friend to listen in on a phone conversation via an extension created liability 26 under CIPA
- rejecting interpretation of “section 631 as 4 merely encompassing the use of electronic amplifying and recording devices”

## Opinion text

KAUS, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the judgment. I agree that the complaint alleges a violation of Penal Code section 631, subdivision (a), since it does not show on its face that the tariff exception of subsection (2) of subdivision (b) is applicable. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s discussion indicating that even if nothing in the tariff in effect at that time prohibited eavesdropping by use of an extension phone, subdivision (a) still applied. I fail to see how a tariff’s silence concerning a particular use of an extension phone can turn such use into one which is not “pursuant *366 to the tariff.” Moreover, if silence as well as express prohibition violate the tariff, it is hard to divine a rational legislative purpose for the tariff exception. 1
The leading law review article on the scope of the Invasion of Privacy Act—cited several times by the majority—indicates that the majority errs in reading subdivision (b)(2) as if it did not exist; “At present, the tariffs of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company place no restrictions on the use of ordinary extension telephones. Thus under this exception one party seemingly can permit a third person to listen in on a conversation on an extension, a clear contradiction of the intent of section 631(a).” (Comment, Electronic Surveillance in California: A Study in State Legislative Control (1969) 57 Cal.L.Rev. 1182, 1205-1206.) 2
Indeed, even if there were some ambiguity in the application of the tariff exemption in this setting, the majority’s interpretation ignores the fact that we are construing a penal statute. Although in this case defendant faces only civil damages, under the majority’s reading of the statute defendant would have committed a crime even if her conduct violated no tariff. 3
In short, since the complaint does not specifically allege that the eavesdropping was accomplished by the use of equipment furnished and used according to a public utility’s tariff, the complaint does state a cause of action for a violation of section 631. If it should turn out, however, that the extension in question was furnished and used in a manner consistent with the applicable tariffs, the action should fail.
Broussard, J., and Lucas, J., concurred.
The majority suggests that it was designed to apply to the use of recording and monitoring equipment. I respectfully suggest that this purpose is served by subdivision (e)(2) of section 632.
The fact that today a tariff may prohibit eavesdropping by extension is, of course, immaterial.
I find no support for the majority’s suggestion at footnote 4 that there would be no liability as between parents and their children for violations of the Invasion of Privacy Act and even less for the further suggestion that, in any event, the prohibitions of the act do not apply to children at all. Nowhere in this act, which provides for criminal sanctions as well as a civil cause of action for damages, is there any special rule for minors. (See Pen. Code, § 26.)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9548935. Public record. Not legal advice.