Arkansas
Arkansas Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Arkansas. Because Arkansas follows a one-party consent rule under , you can lawfully record any conversation you are part of with smart glasses audio on without notifying the other participants. Video recording in public is generally lawful under both federal and state law. The critical limits are voyeurism law and private spaces where recording is always prohibited regardless of consent.
Information last verified on 2026-06-07. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Arkansas recording consent law under and unlawful photography and video voyeurism under § 5-16-101. It does not address federal wiretap law in depth; for that background, see the Arkansas recording laws parent page. It does not address the laws of other states.
For a full explanation of Arkansas's one-party consent rule and how it applies to phones, in-person conversations, and the workplace, see the Arkansas recording laws guide.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Arkansas?
Smart glasses are entirely legal to own and wear in Arkansas. No Arkansas statute restricts the sale, possession, or use of wearable camera-equipped eyewear as a device category. Arkansas has not enacted any legislation specifically targeting smart glasses, digital eyewear, or wearable recording devices as of June 2026. The legality question turns not on the device itself but on what you do with it: the audio-recording capability is what triggers Arkansas's eavesdropping and interception statute, and the visual capability in certain spaces triggers the voyeurism statute.
Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED indicator (a white light near the right frame) that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Meta upgraded this LED from 1mm to 2mm and increased its brightness in response to privacy concerns. Meta's official guidance states that users should "let that capture LED light shine" and stop recording if anyone expresses that they would prefer not to be recorded. The LED is the most tangible external signal that recording is happening, and its visibility is relevant to whether another person has a reasonable expectation that a conversation is not being captured.
Wearing smart glasses in public, at work, or in social settings is not independently unlawful. The legal analysis focuses entirely on whether the audio component captures a private oral communication without any party's consent, and whether the recording device is used in a location where voyeurism law applies.
Recording Video in Public Versus Private Spaces
Under both federal and Arkansas law, video-only recording in public is generally lawful. The federal Wiretap Act (-2522) covers only "aural transfers" that contain the human voice. Silent video recording is not an interception under because it does not involve an oral communication as defined in § 2510(2). Arkansas follows the same principle: its interception statute addresses the capture of private oral communications, not the act of observing or filming people in public places where they can be seen.
The constitutional baseline is Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which established that Fourth Amendment protections apply wherever a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. People on public streets, in parks, at festivals, in stores, or on sidewalks have a reduced expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed. Smart glasses used to record video of a crowd, a public event, or street scenes generally do not create legal exposure under Arkansas law.
Private spaces present a categorically different analysis. In any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical person and intimate conduct, such as a home, hotel room, medical office, or other enclosed space where entry requires permission, recording without consent can be both a civil intrusion and a criminal voyeurism violation. The bright line is between the reduced privacy expectation of being seen in public and the strong expectation people hold in spaces where they reasonably believe they will not be observed or recorded.
Semi-public spaces introduce a middle category that requires judgment. A workplace break room, a private conference room, or a restaurant booth where two people are having a quiet conversation are all spaces where a person might be physically accessible to others yet still have a reasonable expectation that their words and conduct are not being captured. In those contexts, recording even without audio can support a civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B if the recording would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Recording Audio and Arkansas's One-Party Consent Rule
The central legal framework for smart glasses audio recording in Arkansas is Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120. The statute establishes a one-party consent standard: any person who is a party to a private oral communication may record that communication without the knowledge or consent of the other participants. This is the federal baseline position, and Arkansas adopts it without modification.
What this means in practice is straightforward: if you are wearing Meta Ray-Ban glasses and you are having a conversation with another person, activating the audio recording function is lawful because you are a participant in that conversation. You do not need to announce that you are recording. The other party need not consent.
The critical constraint is the word "private." Section 5-60-120 governs private oral communications, meaning oral exchanges in which the participants have a reasonable expectation that what they say is not being overheard or intercepted by others. A conversation shouted across a crowded street where anyone could hear it is not a private oral communication. A quiet discussion in an office, a personal exchange in a home, or a one-on-one meeting between employees likely is. Smart glasses wearers should assess whether the conversation they are capturing would reasonably be understood by participants as private in that context.
Non-participant interception is the prohibited conduct. If a person who is not part of a conversation uses smart glasses to record the private oral communications of others, without any party to that conversation consenting, that person violates § 5-60-120. This is a Class A misdemeanor under Arkansas law, carrying up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 per offense. The misdemeanor classification means criminal exposure is real but measured; the more significant deterrent in Arkansas is the federal civil damages available under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which provides a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 in statutory damages, whichever is greater, plus actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
For smart glasses users, the practical application is clear: recording conversations you are actively participating in is lawful. Pointing your glasses at other people to capture their private conversations, using the audio function to eavesdrop on others without being a party, is criminal.
For the full detail of how Arkansas's one-party consent rule applies to phone calls, workplace recordings, and other contexts, see the Arkansas recording laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Private Spaces
Arkansas's voyeurism statute, , draws an absolute line that no consent analysis can overcome. The statute criminalizes secretly observing, photographing, filming, or recording the intimate or private areas of a person without their consent in any location where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their body.
Protected locations include bathrooms, restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, changing areas, private residences, and any other space where a person would reasonably expect that their body or intimate conduct will not be observed or recorded. Section 5-16-101 applies to smart glasses exactly as it applies to hidden cameras, body cameras, or any other recording device. The innocuous appearance of smart glasses, which look indistinguishable from ordinary prescription frames, does not create an exception. If anything, the covert appearance of smart glasses strengthens the inference that a recording in these prohibited spaces was intentional and hidden.
The criminal penalties under § 5-16-101 depend on how the device was used. Using equipment that is concealed, operated to escape detection, or disguised, the fact pattern smart glasses present, to secretly record another person's body under subsection (b) is a Class B misdemeanor, carrying up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $1,000. That penalty rises to a Class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year in jail and a fine up to $2,500, if the recording is distributed, posted online, or the person has a prior conviction under this section. A separate, more severe felony tier under subsection (a), a Class D felony on a first or second offense (up to 6 years, $10,000 fine) and a Class C felony on a third or subsequent offense, or when the victim is under 14 years of age (3 to 10 years, $10,000 fine), applies to recording devices used or installed in structures like restrooms and locker rooms. These are not trivial consequences even at the misdemeanor tier; they reflect how seriously Arkansas treats privacy violations in spaces where people are most vulnerable.
The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act () provides a parallel prohibition for recordings on federal property, covering anyone who intentionally captures images of another person's private areas without consent where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Federal law applies on federal land; Arkansas § 5-16-101 applies everywhere else in the state.
Watch out: The wearable form factor of smart glasses is not a defense to voyeurism charges. A court analyzing whether recording was "secret" under § 5-16-101 would consider that the device appeared to be ordinary eyewear, which strengthens evidence of intentional concealment. The only safe rule is to remove or deactivate smart glasses before entering restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or any other private space, regardless of whether recording is actively occurring.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Arkansas does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14), Texas' Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 503.001-503.004), or Washington's biometric identifiers law (RCW Chapter 19.375) as of June 2026. An Arkansas resident who uses smart glasses equipped with facial-recognition software to identify strangers does not face per-person statutory damages under a state biometric law.
The absence of an Arkansas-specific biometric statute does not mean facial recognition via smart glasses is consequence-free in the state. Civil liability under common-law privacy torts remains available to individuals. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, a person who intentionally intrudes upon the seclusion of another is liable if the intrusion would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." The intrusion itself creates liability; there is no requirement that the information be published or shared. Using smart glasses with a facial-recognition application to identify strangers in real time, extracting names and other identifying information without their knowledge, satisfies both the intent and offensiveness elements of this tort.
The October 2024 demonstration by Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio, who used Meta Ray-Ban glasses combined with a third-party facial-recognition tool to identify strangers on the street and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers in real time, illustrates precisely the conduct that supports an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim. Meta's glasses provided the camera; the facial-recognition capability came from a separately installed application. That distinction matters: the glasses themselves do not perform facial recognition, but they become the capture mechanism for a system that does.
If an Arkansas-based person uses smart glasses with facial-recognition features in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states apply to the residents of those states whose biometric data is captured. Illinois BIPA in particular provides a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation per person. An Arkansas resident traveling to or doing business in those states faces meaningful liability exposure if facial recognition is used without consent. Multi-state users should treat Illinois, Texas, and Washington as categorical prohibition zones for facial-recognition use without explicit prior consent.
Penalties for Violating Arkansas's Recording Laws
Arkansas's recording-related criminal penalties span two statutes, each carrying distinct consequences for smart glasses misuse.
Under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120, non-participant interception of a private oral communication is a Class A misdemeanor. Class A misdemeanor penalties in Arkansas carry imprisonment of up to 1 year and a fine of up to $2,500. This applies to a person who uses smart glasses to capture the private conversations of others while not being a participant.
The civil consequences under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act can exceed the criminal penalties. The ECPA provides for recovery of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 in statutory damages per violation, plus actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. A single recording session could constitute multiple violations if multiple separate communications are intercepted.
Under , voyeuristic recording with a concealed or disguised device such as smart glasses is a Class B misdemeanor under subsection (b), carrying up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $1,000, rising to a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $2,500 fine) if the recording is distributed, posted online, or the person has a prior conviction under this section. A separate felony tier under subsection (a) applies to devices used or installed in structures like restrooms: a first or second offense is a Class D felony with imprisonment up to 6 years and a fine up to $10,000, and a third or subsequent offense, or any offense where the victim is under 14 years of age, is a Class C felony, with imprisonment from 3 to 10 years and a fine up to $10,000. Felony-level voyeurism convictions in Arkansas can also carry mandatory sex offender registration requirements, which impose lasting consequences beyond the criminal sentence itself.
At the federal level, violations of the Wiretap Act under carry up to 5 years imprisonment and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per violation, with attorney fees. Federal law provides a floor; Arkansas's state statutes apply to conduct within Arkansas.
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-participant interception of private oral communication | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | Up to $2,500 |
| Concealed/disguised device voyeurism, e.g. smart glasses (no distribution, no prior) | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101(b) | Class B misdemeanor | Up to 90 days | Up to $1,000 |
| Concealed/disguised device voyeurism (distributed, posted online, or prior conviction) | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101(b) | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year | Up to $2,500 |
| Voyeurism device installed in a structure (1st or 2nd offense) | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101(a) | Class D felony | Up to 6 years | Up to $10,000 |
| Voyeurism device installed in a structure (3rd+ offense, or victim under 14) | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101(a) | Class C felony | 3 to 10 years | Up to $10,000 |
| Federal wiretap violation | 18 U.S.C. § 2511 | Federal felony | Up to 5 years | $10,000+ statutory |
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Arkansas
Following a few straightforward practices significantly reduces legal exposure when using smart glasses in Arkansas.
Keep the capture LED visible. Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a built-in white LED that illuminates when the camera is recording, taking a photo, or streaming live. Meta's guidance is explicit: let the LED shine. Never cover, tape over, or otherwise obstruct the LED. Doing so removes the only external notice that recording is occurring and strengthens evidence of intentional covert recording, the exact intent that aggravates both eavesdropping and voyeurism charges.
Understand your one-party consent protection. Arkansas's one-party consent rule under § 5-60-120 gives participants a clear legal foundation to record conversations they are part of. Use this protection intentionally: it applies when you are actively engaged in the conversation being recorded. It does not apply if you leave the room and continue recording, or if you point your glasses at others to capture conversations you are not part of.
Do not record non-participants' private conversations. Using smart glasses to capture the private oral communications of others without being a party to the conversation is a criminal offense under § 5-60-120, even in public. The one-party consent protection requires that you yourself be a party to the recorded communication.
Never record in private spaces. Bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, bedrooms, and any other space where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their body are absolute prohibitions under § 5-16-101. Remove or deactivate smart glasses before entering these spaces. Using a concealed or disguised device like smart glasses to record there is at minimum a Class B misdemeanor under subsection (b), and can escalate to a Class A misdemeanor if the recording is shared or you have a prior conviction, or to a felony under subsection (a) if the device is installed in the structure itself.
Be cautious crossing state lines. Arkansas's one-party rule is permissive, but it applies only within Arkansas. If you travel to California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, or another all-party consent state, that state's more restrictive law governs any audio recording you make there. Smart glasses users who frequently travel should be aware that the legal environment changes at the state border.
Avoid facial-recognition features. Even without an Arkansas biometric statute, using facial recognition to identify individuals without their knowledge creates exposure under common-law privacy torts. In professional or commercial contexts involving residents of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states apply. Use facial-recognition features only with explicit, disclosed consent.
Consider disclosing recording even when not legally required. In Arkansas, one-party consent means you are not legally required to announce that you are recording a conversation you are part of. In practice, announcing "I'm recording this" or ensuring the capture LED is clearly visible to others removes ambiguity and eliminates any argument about reasonable expectations of privacy in the communication.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Arkansas recording consent law and voyeurism statutes as they apply to smart glasses. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The statutes discussed reflect their in-force versions as of June 7, 2026. Laws may change; always verify current statute text with the Arkansas General Assembly's official publication or a licensed Arkansas attorney. Readers who need advice about a specific situation, including whether a recording was lawful or whether civil or criminal liability may apply, should consult a lawyer licensed in Arkansas.
Last updated: 2026-06-07. Statutes cited reflect their in-force versions as of 2026-06-07.
- Arkansas AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Arkansas Alimony Laws
- Arkansas At-Will Employment Laws
- Arkansas Car Accident Laws
- Arkansas Car Seat Laws
- Arkansas Child Custody Laws
- Arkansas Child Support Laws
- Arkansas Common Law Marriage Laws
- Arkansas Dashcam Laws
- Arkansas Data Privacy Laws
- Arkansas Deepfake Laws
- Arkansas Divorce Laws
- Arkansas Dog Bite Laws
- Arkansas Drone Laws
- Arkansas Emancipation Laws
- Arkansas Employee Monitoring Laws
More Arkansas Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are smart glasses legal in Arkansas?
Yes. Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Arkansas. No Arkansas statute restricts the device itself. The legal analysis focuses on how the glasses are used, specifically whether the audio recording captures private oral communications without any party's consent, or whether the device is used in spaces where the voyeurism statute applies.
Do I need consent to record audio with smart glasses in Arkansas?
No, if you are a participant in the conversation. Arkansas follows a one-party consent rule under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120, which means any party to a private oral communication may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from the other parties. You must be an active participant in the conversation. Recording the conversations of others when you are not part of them is a Class A misdemeanor.
Is Arkansas a one-party consent state for recording?
Yes. Under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120, Arkansas requires only one party to a private oral communication to consent to its recording. Because the person doing the recording is typically a party to the conversation, a participant can lawfully record any conversation they are part of without notifying others.
Can I record a conversation at work with smart glasses in Arkansas?
Recording an in-person workplace conversation you are part of is lawful under Arkansas's one-party consent rule. However, workplace recordings may implicate employer policies and federal employment law, and recording a conversation you are not part of is still a criminal offense under § 5-60-120. Always check your employer's recording policy before recording at work, and ensure that any recording captures only conversations in which you are an active participant.
What happens if I record someone in a bathroom or locker room with smart glasses in Arkansas?
Recording in a bathroom, locker room, changing room, or any other private space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their body constitutes video voyeurism under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101, regardless of any consent analysis. Because smart glasses are a concealed or disguised device, this is a Class B misdemeanor under subsection (b), carrying up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $1,000, rising to a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $2,500 fine) if you distribute or post the recording, or have a prior conviction under this section. A separate, more severe felony tier under subsection (a) applies to devices installed in structures like restrooms: a first or second offense is a Class D felony (up to 6 years, $10,000 fine), and a third or subsequent offense, or any offense involving a victim under 14 years of age, is a Class C felony (3 to 10 years, $10,000 fine).
Can I be sued for recording someone with smart glasses in Arkansas?
Yes. Even if no criminal statute is violated, recording a person in a private or semi-private context without their knowledge can support a civil claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. The intrusion itself creates liability; the footage need not be published or shared. Federal ECPA civil damages of up to $10,000 per violation, plus actual and punitive damages and attorney fees, are also available for unlawful audio interception.
Is facial recognition with smart glasses legal in Arkansas?
Arkansas has no dedicated biometric privacy statute as of June 2026. However, using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify individuals without their consent can create civil liability under the intrusion-upon-seclusion tort. If the glasses are used to capture biometric data from residents of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states may apply regardless of where the recording occurred.
Does the capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses matter legally in Arkansas?
Yes. The LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses is the primary external notice that recording is occurring. Keeping it visible supports a position that recording was open rather than covert. Covering or disabling the LED removes this notice and strengthens evidence of intentional covert recording, which is directly relevant to both the eavesdropping and voyeurism statutes. Meta's own guidance requires users to keep the LED unobstructed.
What if I travel from Arkansas to a two-party consent state and use my smart glasses there?
Arkansas's one-party consent rule applies to recordings made in Arkansas. If you travel to an all-party consent state such as California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, or Washington, that state's law governs audio recordings made there. Recording private conversations without all parties' consent in those states can be a criminal offense regardless of your home state's rules. Smart glasses users who travel should research the recording consent law of each state they visit.
Can I record a police officer with my smart glasses in Arkansas?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment and is consistent with Arkansas's one-party consent rule when you are present and a participant in or observer of a lawful public interaction. Audio recording of a public law enforcement encounter, where you are present, falls within the one-party consent protection. For a full analysis of recording police in Arkansas, see the Arkansas recording laws page.
Can I wear smart glasses while driving in Arkansas?
Arkansas restricts the use of handheld wireless communication devices while driving. Whether wearing smart glasses while driving violates Arkansas distracted-driving statutes depends on the specific activity, as using glasses for navigation differs from actively recording or streaming video while operating a vehicle. The legal status of smart glasses for navigation use is not explicitly resolved in Arkansas law as of June 2026. Streaming video, social media use, or non-navigation activities on a heads-up display while driving creates significantly greater legal and safety risk.
Updates
Corrected the Arkansas video-voyeurism penalty description to add the automatic Class C felony enhancement under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101(a) when the victim is under 14 years old, and replaced the two dead Arkansas statute citation links with working links to the actual text of §§ 5-60-120 and 5-16-101.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the smart-glasses voyeurism penalty throughout the page: using a concealed/disguised device like smart glasses to record someone is a Class B misdemeanor under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101(b), not a flat Class D felony; the felony tiers under subsection (a) apply to devices installed in structures.
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.
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated
§ 5-16-101Crime of video voyeurism.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) It is unlawful for a person to use a camera, videotape, photo- optical, photoelectric, or other image recording device for the purpose of secretly observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping another person who is present in a residence, place of business, school, or other structu
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at arkleg.state.ar.us
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied the video voyeurism statute in Devries (2019), where children had a reasonable expectation of privacy behind closed bedroom and bathroom doors in a parent's home, and in Powell (2020), holding the crime is complete on using a camera for the prohibited purpose even if the images are never viewed.
Leading cases:
- Opinion No. (Arkansas Attorney General Reports 2001)“…tice of the surveillance would also negate any violation of A.C.A. § 5-16-101 , which criminalizes "video voyeurism."…”
- Bruce Wayne Devries v. State of Arkansas (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2019, 2019 Ark. App. 478)✓One adopted daughter testified she caught Devries watching her through the bathroom window and found a baby monitor in her bathroom and bedroom; another caught him filming under her door. The court affirmed the video voyeurism convictions, rejecting his no-privacy-at-home claim.
- Robert Powell v. State of Arkansas (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2020, 605 S.W.3d 532)✓Powell hid a camera in a fake outlet in a cabin he rented to a family and argued he could not be guilty because police took the SD card before he viewed the footage; the court held the statute punishes using a camera for that secret purpose, so never watching is no defense.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy Rights (2026), Arkansas Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Arkansas Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Private Property, and Consent (2026)
§ 5-60-120Interception and recording.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wireless communication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at arkleg.state.ar.us
Cited in 10 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. State (1999) applied Section 5-60-120(a) to a man who taped his ex-wife's calls without being a party or having consent, affirming revocation. Elliott v. State (1998) held that while such recording by a private citizen is unlawful, the statute does not bar the tape from evidence.
Leading cases:
- Lewis v. State (Supreme Court of Arkansas 1999, 336 Ark. 469)✓A man on probation admitted attaching a recorder to the telephone box outside his ex-wife's house and taping her calls; the court found that violated Section 5-60-120(a) because he was not a party and no party consented, and affirmed the revocation.
- Opinion No. (Arkansas Attorney General Reports 1998)“…consented to the recording. This provision is set forth in A.C.A. § 5-60-120 , as follows: 5-60-120 . Interceptio…”
- King v. State (Supreme Court of Arkansas 2019, 571 S.W.3d 476)✓A friend's phone app secretly recorded a murder suspect's call with a detective; the court held that although Section 5-60-120 makes such a recording by a non-party unlawful, it does not bar admissibility, and affirmed the refusal to exclude the tape.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Arkansas Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Legal Uses (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Defenses (2026), South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Leading cases:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Leading cases:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120: Arkansas interception of private oral communications statute. One-party consent rule: any participant may record without notifying others. Non-participant interception is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, fine up to $2,500).(law.justia.com)
- Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101: Arkansas video voyeurism statute. Subsection (b): using a concealed or disguised device (e.g. smart glasses) to secretly record a person's body is a Class B misdemeanor (up to 90 days, fine up to $1,000), rising to a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $2,500) if distributed, posted online, or on a prior conviction. Subsection (a): a device installed in a structure like a restroom is a Class D felony on a 1st/2nd offense (up to 6 years, $10,000 fine) and a Class C felony on a 3rd+ offense or when the victim is under 14 years of age (3-10 years, $10,000 fine).(law.justia.com)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). Criminal penalty: up to 5 years. Civil statutory damages: at least $10,000 per violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510: Federal Wiretap Act definitions. 'Oral communication' (§ 2510(2)) and 'aural transfer' (§ 2510(18)) establish that video-only recording is not a wiretap interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801: Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits capturing images of private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance to keep the LED unobstructed and stop recording if anyone objects.(meta.com)
- Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B: Intrusion upon seclusion. Intentional intrusion into another's private affairs is actionable if highly offensive to a reasonable person; publication is not required.(cyber.harvard.edu)