Opinion ID: 2230307
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Defendant's Constitutional Challenges.

Text: Defendant urges that the statute under which she was charged violates both due process and equal protection because the words right or authority to do so are not specifically defined and because the statute does not embrace a concept of expectation of privacy. Iowa Code section 727.8 provides: Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor; provided, that the sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication shall not be prohibited hereby from recording such message or communication; and further provided, that nothing herein shall restrict the use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal. Defendant's equal-protection argument must fail because she has identified no similar class of persons that is treated more favorably under the act than she was. Her contention that an expectation of privacy must exist in order for the statute to satisfy substantive due-process requirements is of doubtful constitutional merit. We need not decide that question, however, because the district court instructed the jury that, in order to convict, the recorded matter must have been uttered by a person or persons who exhibited a subjective expectation of privacy which was reasonable by societal standards. [1] With respect to defendant's contention that the words right or authority to do so are not sufficiently definite to withstand a vagueness challenge, we are convinced that the words are not vague as applied to her situation. Because no fundamental right is involved, defendant may not lodge a facial due-process challenge to the statute. State v. Reed, 618 N.W.2d 327, 332 (Iowa 2000). Defendant also argues that section 727.8 violates due process because it would permit the conviction of a person who accidentally records a conversation. Without deciding whether the statute is defective in that manner or, if so, whether this would violate due process, we reject defendant's challenge because the district court instructed the jury that the State was required to show defendant intended the actions, i.e., the recording of conversations, on which the prosecution was based.