## Facts

- Mutual Central Alarm Service, Inc. operated a central station alarm facility that monitored customers’ burglar and fire alarms and notified emergency services when alarms activated.
- To follow industry practice, Mutual purchased a Dictaphone recording system when it began operations and used it to monitor and record telephone calls to and from the central station.
- The recording system served business purposes, including verifying accurate and timely reports to police and fire departments, resolving disputes about whether and when calls were made, and deterring or investigating employee misconduct involving sensitive customer information.
- After office renovations in early 1994, Mutual wired the system so that all incoming and outgoing calls on its lines were recorded continuously, 24 hours a day.
- Lourdes Rachel Arias (administrative assistant) and Louis J. Albero (bookkeeper/office manager) alleged they complained about audible indications on the lines and were told by a company officer that their calls were not being recorded.
- In 1995, during a dispute with Mutual, plaintiffs learned that personal calls on Mutual’s lines had been recorded and that company officers sometimes listened to recordings, including some of Albero’s calls.
- Plaintiffs sued for civil damages under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (the federal Wiretap Act), alleging unlawful interception of private and privileged telephone conversations.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer’s continuous recording of all incoming and outgoing calls at a central alarm station constitutes an unlawful “interception” under Title III.
2. Whether the recording fell within Title III’s exception for telephone equipment used by a subscriber “in the ordinary course of its business,” even without explicit notice to employees and despite incidental capture of personal calls.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
- The court held that the call-recording practice fell within the “ordinary course of business” exception in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a).
- Because the recording equipment and practice qualified for that exception, defendants did not use an “electronic, mechanical, or other device” as defined by Title III, and thus did not unlawfully “intercept” plaintiffs’ calls.
- Summary judgment was appropriate because the material facts concerning the nature, purpose, and business context of the recording system were not genuinely disputed.

## Legal Principles

- Title III prohibits intentional interception of wire communications using an “electronic, mechanical, or other device,” but excludes from that definition telephone equipment (and components) used by a subscriber in the ordinary course of its business. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a), 2510(4), 2510(5)(a).
- Where continuous call recording is closely connected to a company’s core operational responsibilities—such as documenting and verifying emergency notifications at a central alarm station—it may be “in the ordinary course of business” even if broad in scope.
- Evidence that an industry commonly records all calls, and that insurers, trade groups, or regulators expect such recording, supports treating the practice as ordinary business use.
- The incidental recording of personal calls, and the absence of explicit employee notice, does not necessarily remove an otherwise business-linked recording system from the statutory ordinary-course exception.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit concluded that a central alarm company’s 24-hour recording of all calls on its business lines was a standard, mission-related practice falling within Title III’s ordinary-course-of-business exception, so the recordings were not unlawful interceptions and the employees’ Wiretap Act claims failed on summary judgment.


Arias v. Mut. Cent. Alarm Serv., Inc., 202 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 2000)