Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · Nebraska · Chapter 86 — Telecommunications and Technology

86-271. Definitions, where found.

195 words·~1 min read·/ne/chapter-86/86-271

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

For purposes of sections 86-271 to 86-2,115 , unless the context otherwise requires, the definitions found in sections 86-272 to 86-289 apply.
The Nebraska Supreme Court looks to federal law in interpreting the provisions of Nebraska's intercepted communications statutes, sections 86-701 through 86-712 (recodified in 2002 as sections 86-271 to 86-2,115). The test for issuance of a wiretap order under the provisions of Nebraska's intercepted communications statutes is whether the sworn information before the court is of sufficient apparent reliability to justify a finding that there is probable cause to believe that an offense cognizable under said statutes has been or is being committed. State v. Hinton, 226 Neb. 787, 415 N.W.2d 138 (1987).
Conversations in which one party has consented to the recording of the conversation are not oral communications within the meaning of communication interception statutes (recodified in 2002 as sections 86-271 to 86-2,115). State v. Manchester, 220 Neb. 41, 367 N.W.2d 733 (1985).
Evidence of telephone conversations obtained by wiretaps in violation of this article (recodified in 2002 as sections 86-271 to 86-2,115) are inadmissible in evidence if timely objection is made. White v. Longo, 190 Neb. 703, 212 N.W.2d 84 (1973).
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.