Massachusetts
Massachusetts Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Massachusetts criminalizes voyeurism and covert recording under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105, which prohibits photographing or recording a person's intimate parts without consent. Using a hidden camera in a bathroom, changing room, or other private space to secretly capture a person who is nude or partially nude violates the statute. For an adult victim with no dissemination, the penalty tops out at 2.5 years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine; a minor victim or dissemination of the images raises the exposure to up to five years in state prison and a $10,000 fine, and disseminating images of a child's intimate parts carries up to 10 years in state prison.
Massachusetts addresses voyeurism and hidden cameras through multiple overlapping statutes that together create some of the strongest protections in the country against invasive visual recording. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 specifically targets voyeuristic photography and video recording, while Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 adds felony penalties when hidden cameras also capture audio. The 2024 revenge porn law provides additional protections against non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
This guide covers the voyeurism statute, upskirting laws, hidden camera prohibitions, the revenge porn law, penalties, and how these protections overlap with the wiretap statute.
The Voyeurism Statute: Section 105
What Section 105 Prohibits
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 makes it a crime to:
- Photograph, videotape, or electronically surveil the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around that person's clothing, secretly and without that person's knowledge and consent
- **Record under or around clothing** (upskirting/downblousing) without consent
- Covertly photograph or record a person who is nude or partially nude in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Disseminate images or video obtained through voyeuristic means
The statute defines "intimate parts" as the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast. The key element is that the recording is made without the subject's knowledge or consent in circumstances where the subject has not voluntarily exposed themselves.
The 2014 Amendment: Closing the Upskirting Loophole
Section 105 was amended to its current form in response to a 2014 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in Commonwealth v. Robertson. In that case, the court found that the existing "peeping tom" statute did not cover upskirting on public transportation because the victims were not "nude or partially nude" in a place where they had an expectation of privacy.
The ruling prompted immediate legislative action. Within days, the Massachusetts legislature passed Chapter 43 of the Acts of 2014, which:
- Specifically criminalized photographing or recording under or around someone's clothing
- Covered under-clothing recording in any setting where a reasonable person would believe the intimate parts would not be visible to the public, not just private locations
- Created enhanced penalties for this kind of recording of a child under 18
- Extended the existing dissemination offense to these images, with up to 10 years in state prison for disseminating images of a child
Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill the day after it passed both chambers, two days after the SJC's ruling, reflecting the urgency of closing the legal gap.
Elements of a Section 105 Violation
To convict under Section 105, prosecutors must prove:
- The defendant photographed, videotaped, or electronically surveilled either a person who was nude or partially nude, or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person under or around the person's clothing
- The victim did not know of and consent to the recording (the consent element does not appear in the provision covering a child under 18)
- The defendant intended to secretly conduct or hide the activity
- The circumstances were private: for a nude or partially nude person, the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place and circumstance; for recording under or around clothing, a reasonable person would believe the intimate parts would not be visible to the public
- The defendant acted willfully (not accidentally)
The under-clothing offense has no location requirement: voyeuristic recording on public transportation, in a store, on the street, or in any private location is covered. The nude or partially nude offense turns on whether the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place and circumstance.
Types of Hidden Camera Offenses
Hidden Cameras in Private Spaces
Using a hidden camera to secretly photograph, videotape, or electronically surveil a person who is nude or partially nude, without that person's knowledge and consent, in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a criminal offense under Section 105. The offense is the secret capture or viewing of a nude or partially nude person (or of intimate parts under or around clothing), not the camera's location alone. Places where this commonly arises include:
- Restrooms and bathrooms in homes, businesses, schools, and public buildings
- Changing rooms and fitting rooms in retail stores
- Locker rooms and showers in gyms, pools, and recreational facilities
- Hotel and motel rooms
- Bedrooms in someone else's home
- Lactation rooms in workplaces and public buildings
- Medical examination rooms (without patient consent)
Section 105 does not apply to a merchant that electronically surveils a customer changing room if signage warning customers of the surveillance is conspicuously posted at all entrances and inside any surveilled changing room.
Hidden Cameras in Rental Properties
Landlords or property owners who install hidden cameras in tenant living spaces face criminal charges under multiple statutes:
- Section 105 for secretly recording tenants who are nude or partially nude in areas where they have a privacy expectation
- Section 99 if the cameras also capture audio (felony: up to 5 years in prison, $10,000 fine)
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B for violation of the right of privacy (civil liability)
Tenants who discover hidden cameras should contact police immediately and document the camera's location with photographs.
Hidden Cameras in Workplaces
Employers who place hidden cameras in areas where employees have a privacy expectation face criminal and civil liability:
- Hidden cameras that secretly capture employees who are nude or partially nude in restrooms, changing areas, or similar spaces where they expect privacy violate Section 105
- Audio-capable hidden cameras in any workplace location violate Section 99
- The Massachusetts Attorney General's Office enforces workplace privacy protections
Upskirting and Similar Offenses
What Qualifies as Upskirting
Under the 2014 amendment to Section 105, upskirting includes:
- Placing a camera or phone under someone's skirt, dress, or other clothing to capture images of intimate areas
- Using any device to record under or around clothing without the person's consent
- Targeting someone's intimate parts through gaps in clothing, from unusual angles, or using mirror or reflection techniques
The offense can occur in any location: on the subway, in a store, on the street, in an elevator, or anywhere the offender gains visual access to intimate areas that the victim has not voluntarily exposed.
Technology-Facilitated Voyeurism
Modern technology has expanded the methods used for voyeuristic recording:
- Miniature cameras small enough to be hidden in everyday objects (pens, glasses, buttons, shoes)
- Smartphone cameras used covertly in crowded settings
- Drone cameras that can access windows, balconies, or private outdoor areas
- Telescopic lenses that can capture intimate images from a distance
- Smart glasses with cameras that are indistinguishable from regular eyewear
All of these methods are covered under Section 105 when used to capture intimate images without consent.
The 2024 Revenge Porn Law
St. 2024, Ch. 118
In June 2024, Governor Maura Healey signed St. 2024, ch. 118, a comprehensive law addressing non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The law took effect September 18, 2024. It filled a significant gap in Massachusetts protections.
What the Law Covers
The law created one new crime, in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, Section 43A(b): knowingly distributing nude, partially nude or sexual images of an identifiable person, including computer-generated deepfakes, when the distribution causes the person physical or economic injury or substantial emotional distress. The distribution must be done either with intent to harm, harass, intimidate or coerce, or in reckless disregard of the likely harm, the person's lack of consent, and the person's reasonable expectation that the images would stay private.
Creating or possessing a deepfake of an adult is not itself an element of that offense; the crime is the harmful distribution. Consent to creating an image is not consent to distributing it. Separately, the law added coercive control to the definition of abuse used for restraining orders between family or household members, and that definition includes threatening to publish sexually explicit images.
Penalties Under the Revenge Porn Law
| Offense | Maximum Prison Term | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|
| First offense distribution of intimate images | 2.5 years (house of correction) | $10,000 |
| Subsequent offense | 2.5 years (house of correction) or 10 years (state prison) | $15,000 |
| Disseminating unlawfully obtained images of a child's intimate parts (ch. 272, Section 105(c)) | 2.5 years (house of correction) or 10 years (state prison) | $10,000 |
| Distribution of AI-generated (deepfake) intimate images, first offense | 2.5 years (house of correction) | $10,000 |
Additional Protections
The 2024 law also:
- Created a juvenile diversion program for minors involved in sharing explicit images, recognizing that criminal prosecution of teenagers may not always serve the public interest
- Extended the statute of limitations for certain domestic violence offenses from 6 years to 15 years
- Preserved civil remedies, confirming that courts can order a person to stop distributing the images; it does not create a new damages claim, so damages come from existing claims such as invasion of privacy under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B
- Added coercive control to the abuse definition used for restraining orders between family or household members, including threatening to publish sexually explicit images (a victim's first steps in a sextortion situation are in our sextortion guide)
Federal Overlay: TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025)
On May 19, 2025, President Trump signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act into federal law. The Act makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of a person without consent, and requires covered online platforms to remove reported non-consensual intimate images (including AI-generated deepfakes) within 48 hours of a valid request, with the Federal Trade Commission enforcing that duty; that one-year platform-compliance deadline passed on May 19, 2026, so covered platforms are now required to have a working removal process in place. The federal law supplements but does not preempt Massachusetts' St. 2024, ch. 118. The Act does not create a right to sue; a separate federal law, 15 U.S.C. 6851, lets a person sue over the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images. Massachusetts victims can use the state statute, the federal removal process and that federal civil claim together. The TAKE IT DOWN Act is particularly significant for deepfake NCII because it imposes the removal obligation directly on platforms, not just on the perpetrator.
How the Voyeurism and Wiretap Statutes Overlap
When Both Statutes Apply
A single act of hidden camera recording can violate both Section 105 and Section 99 simultaneously:
Scenario: Someone places a hidden camera with audio in a bathroom.
- Section 105 violation: Recording a person's intimate parts without consent in a private location (up to 2.5 years in a house of correction, $5,000 fine, for an adult victim with no dissemination)
- Section 99 violation: Secretly recording oral communications through the hidden camera's microphone (up to 5 years in prison, $10,000 fine)
- Potential additional charges: If images are distributed, the revenge porn law may also apply
Penalty Stacking
Because Section 105 and Section 99 address different conduct (visual invasion vs. audio interception), prosecutors can bring charges under both statutes for the same incident. The combined maximum penalties increase significantly:
| Statutes Charged | Combined Maximum Prison | Combined Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Section 105 only (adult victim) | 2.5 years (house of correction) | $5,000 |
| Section 99 only | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Section 105 + Section 99 (audio camera) | 7.5 years | $15,000 |
| Section 105 (minor victim) + Section 99 | 10 years | $20,000 |
Detecting Hidden Cameras
How to Find Hidden Cameras
If you suspect a hidden camera in a rental property, hotel room, Airbnb, or other location, these methods can help:
- Visual inspection: Look for small holes in walls, ceilings, and objects. Check smoke detectors, clocks, picture frames, and electrical outlets for unusual features.
- Flashlight test: Shine a flashlight around the room. Camera lenses often reflect light distinctly.
- Phone camera check: Some hidden cameras use infrared LEDs that are invisible to the naked eye but visible through a smartphone camera (usually the front-facing camera).
- RF detector: Radio frequency detectors can identify wireless cameras that transmit signals.
- Network scan: Check the Wi-Fi network for unfamiliar connected devices that could be cameras.
What to Do If You Find a Hidden Camera
- Do not touch or remove the camera until police have documented it
- Take photographs of the camera and its placement
- Leave the area if you feel unsafe
- Contact local police to file a report
- Contact the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office if the camera was in a commercial establishment
- Consult an attorney about civil remedies, including damages and injunctive relief
- If in a rental or hotel, contact the property management and consider reporting to the relevant licensing authority
Civil Remedies for Victims
Available Legal Actions
Victims of voyeurism and hidden camera recording in Massachusetts can pursue:
- Criminal prosecution through the district attorney's office
- Civil damages under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B (right of privacy)
- Section 99 Q damages if audio was captured ($100/day or $1,000 minimum, plus attorney fees)
- Court orders to stop distribution of intimate images, which St. 2024, ch. 118 confirms remain available (the law does not create a separate damages claim)
- Restraining orders under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209A if the voyeurism is connected to domestic violence or abuse
Victim Resources
- Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance: mass.gov/mova
- SafeLink Domestic Violence Hotline: For situations where voyeurism is connected to domestic abuse
Massachusetts Recording Laws by Topic
Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras
Back to Massachusetts Recording Laws
More Massachusetts Recording Topics
More Massachusetts Laws
- Massachusetts AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Massachusetts Dashcam Laws
- Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws
- Massachusetts Deepfake Laws
- Massachusetts Employee Monitoring Laws
- Massachusetts GPS Tracking Laws
- Massachusetts Police Bodycam Laws
- Massachusetts Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the penalty for voyeurism in Massachusetts?
For an adult victim with no dissemination, video voyeurism under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 carries up to 2.5 years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine. Dissemination of the images, or a minor victim, raises the penalty to up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine, and disseminating images of a child's intimate parts carries up to 10 years. If the hidden camera also records audio, additional felony charges under Section 99 can add up to 5 more years.
Is upskirting illegal in Massachusetts?
Yes. Massachusetts specifically criminalized upskirting in 2014 after a court ruling found the existing law did not cover it. Under the amended Section 105, photographing or recording under or around someone's clothing without consent is a crime in any setting, punishable by up to 2.5 years in a house of correction for an adult victim with no dissemination, rising to up to 5 years in state prison if disseminated or the victim is a minor.
[Is revenge porn illegal](/us-laws/take-it-down-act/revenge-porn-laws-by-state) in Massachusetts?
Yes. Massachusetts enacted St. 2024, ch. 118, signed in June 2024 and effective September 18, 2024, making it a crime to distribute intimate images without consent. The law also covers AI-generated deepfake intimate images. Penalties include up to 2.5 years in a house of correction and a $10,000 fine for a first offense; a second or subsequent offense carries up to 10 years in state prison and a $15,000 fine.
What should I do if I find a hidden camera?
Do not touch or remove the camera. Take photographs documenting its location and placement. Contact local police to file a report. If the camera is in a rental property or hotel, notify the property management. Consult an attorney about civil remedies including privacy damages.
Can I face charges under both the voyeurism and wiretap statutes?
Yes. If a hidden camera captures both visual content and audio, prosecutors can bring charges under both Section 105 (voyeurism) and Section 99 (wiretap). The combined maximum penalties can reach 10 years in prison and $15,000 to $20,000 in fines depending on the victim's age.
Updates
We corrected the description of Massachusetts' 2024 revenge porn law, which makes harmful distribution of intimate images a crime but does not criminalize creating, possessing or threatening to share them and does not create a new damages claim; we also corrected the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, which has no private right to sue, fixed the 2014 amendment history, and noted 10-year penalty tiers. We corrected the revenge porn FAQ to state that a repeat offense carries up to 10 years in state prison, not only a higher fine, and replaced a vague "distribution involving a minor" table row with the actual child-image dissemination offense and its 10-year maximum.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected our description of Massachusetts's voyeurism statute (ch. 272, Section 105) to explain that the offense requires secretly capturing a nude or partially nude person, or intimate parts under or around clothing, not merely placing a camera, and added the statute's merchant changing-room signage exception.
Fixed a citation pointing to an unrelated 2014 Belmont liquor-license act instead of the real upskirting amendment (Chapter 43 of the Acts of 2014); corrected the TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date from 2026 to 2025 in all four places it appeared; corrected the Section 105 penalty ladder, which had overstated the base adult-victim hidden-camera penalty; corrected the 2024 intimate-images law's first-offense fine from $5,000 to $10,000; and fixed two minor date errors.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272
§ 105Photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling partially nude or nude person or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person around the person's clothing; exceptions; punishmentIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
Section 105. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise: ''Electronically surveils'' or ''electronically surveilled'', to view, obtain or record a person's visual image by the use or aid of a camera, cellular or other wireless communication device, computer, television or other electronic device. ''Partially nude'', the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola. ''Sexual or other intimate parts'', human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Massachusetts courts have applied section 105 to secret imaging. Commonwealth v. Robertson (2014) held section 105(b) as then written did not reach upskirt photography of fully clothed people, which prompted a 2014 amendment, and Commonwealth v. Wassilie (2019) held the unit of prosecution under paragraph one is each victim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Wassilie (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2019, 482 Mass. 562)✓A man hid a phone in paper towels facing a public unisex toilet and recorded adults and children; the court held the unit of prosecution under section 105(b), first paragraph, is each victim, and that the third paragraph child upskirting language is not unconstitutionally vague.
- Commonwealth v. Robertson (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2014, 467 Mass. 371)✓A man was charged with aiming his phone camera up the skirts of clothed women on an MBTA trolley; the court held section 105(b) reaches only a person nude or partially nude at the time, so the charged upskirting fell outside it, and reversed the denial of his motion to dismiss.
- COMMONWEALTH v. MARKUS COOPER. (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2021, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 345)✓A man pointed a phone camera into a bathroom stall where a woman was urinating, then fled; the court held section 105(b), first paragraph, does not require the Commonwealth to produce the photograph, so the camera sound plus his flight supported the conviction.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, Massachusetts Laws on Recording in Public, Massachusetts Security Camera Laws
§ 99Interception of wire and oral communicationsIn forcecited in 25 of our articles
Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.— A. Preamble. The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living. The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 271 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Blood (1987) read Section 99 as generally proscribing secret recording of oral communications without all parties' consent, and suppressed under art. 14 a warrantless police recording made with one party's consent. Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975) held Section 99 substantially complies with federal Title III.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Vitello (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 367 Mass. 224)✓In a gaming prosecution built on wiretapped phone calls, the SJC gave chapter 272 section 99 its first full review and held the state wiretap statute substantially complies with federal Title III and that the warrants issued under it met both standards.
- Commonwealth v. Blood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1987, 400 Mass. 61)✓Police wired an informant who recorded conversations in private homes about a planned break-in; the SJC held the recordings fell within section 99's one-party-consent exception but that article 14 nonetheless required a warrant, and reversed the convictions.
- Commonwealth v. D'Amour (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1999, 428 Mass. 725)✓The SJC upheld a section 99 wiretap of a widow suspected of arranging her husband's murder for insurance money, holding the district attorney's written designation of an assistant satisfied Vitello and that probable cause supported the organized crime connection.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Audio Recording Laws, Massachusetts Dashcam Laws, Massachusetts Medical Recording Laws
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 214
§ 1BRight of privacyIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
Section 1B. A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 199 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (2005) held that recovery under c. 214, Section 1B requires a disclosure both unreasonable and either substantial or serious, and that publicity on a matter of public concern falls outside it. Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co. (1982) held an attempted intrusion that obtained no information is not actionable.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Madsen v. Erwin (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1985, 395 Mass. 715)✓A Christian Science Monitor writer fired after her employers questioned her about her sexual orientation sued under Section 1B; the court held the privacy count as pleaded did not survive dismissal but let her replead it, since religion clauses do not immunize tortious conduct.
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2005, 443 Mass. 367)✓A physician won a privacy verdict after her institute leaked confidential peer review material about chemotherapy overdoses to a newspaper; the court vacated it, holding disclosures about her professional conduct in a matter of intense public interest fall outside Section 1B.
- Duarte v. Healy (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1989, 405 Mass. 43)✓Cambridge fire fighter recruits had to give monitored urine samples and Duarte was fired after testing positive for cocaine; the court assumed a Privacy Act violation but held the city manager and fire chief immune for discretionary acts, so the Section 1B claims were dismissed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws, Massachusetts Video Recording Laws, Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws: Security Rules & Consumer Rights (2026)
Sources and References
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 - Video Voyeurism(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 - Wiretapping Statute(malegislature.gov).gov
- Governor Healey Signs Bill Banning Revenge Porn (St. 2024, ch. 118)(mass.gov).gov
- Chapter 43 of the Acts of 2014 - Upskirting Amendment(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B - Right of Privacy(malegislature.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance(mass.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) - Federal NCII Removal Law(congress.gov).gov