Connecticut

Connecticut Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 24, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 7, 202615 min read

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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Connecticut Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Key Takeaways

1Video-only recording in public is generally lawful in Connecticut because people in public spaces have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen.
2Audio recording of a private in-person conversation is governed by Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189). A participant who is present and recording their own conversation satisfies the participant-consent rule under State v. DeMartin (1976).
3Phone call recording is stricter: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d requires all-party consent for telephonic communications, with no participant exception. Compliance options include written consent, recorded verbal notification at the call's start, or an automatic beep-tone every 15 seconds.
4Recording audio in restrooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, or other private spaces constitutes voyeurism under § 53a-189a regardless of consent, and is a Class D felony on a first offense.
5Connecticut has no dedicated biometric privacy statute as of June 2026, but covert facial-recognition use with smart glasses can still create civil liability under the intrusion-upon-seclusion tort.
6Violating Connecticut's eavesdropping law carries up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000 as a Class D felony.
7The capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses provides notice to nearby individuals; covering or disabling it heightens evidence of non-consensual recording intent.

Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Connecticut, but the audio capture they enable triggers Connecticut's eavesdropping statutes. Video recording in a public space is generally lawful, while recording the audio of a private conversation without all parties' consent can constitute a Class D felony under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189.

Information last verified on 2026-06-07. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Connecticut recording consent law under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189 (criminal eavesdropping) and § 52-570d (civil telephonic wiretapping), along with voyeurism under § 53a-189a. It does not address federal wiretap law in depth; for that background, see the Connecticut recording laws parent page. It does not address laws of other states.

For a full explanation of Connecticut's consent rules and how they apply to phones, in-person conversations, and the workplace, see the Connecticut recording laws guide.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Connecticut?

Smart glasses are entirely legal to own and wear in Connecticut. No state statute restricts the sale, possession, or use of wearable camera-equipped eyewear as a device category. Connecticut has not enacted any legislation specifically targeting smart glasses, digital eyewear, or wearable recording devices as of June 2026. The legality question therefore turns not on the glasses themselves but on what you do with them: the audio-recording capability is what triggers Connecticut's eavesdropping statutes and, in private-space situations, 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 matters legally in Connecticut because it provides the most tangible indication that recording is occurring. Its visibility to others is relevant to whether a person has a reasonable expectation that a conversation is private.

Wearing smart glasses in public, at work, or at social gatherings is not independently unlawful. What matters is whether the audio component of any recording captures a "private" oral communication without consent under § 53a-187, or whether the device is used in a space where its use constitutes voyeurism.

Recording Video in Public Versus Private Spaces

Under both federal and Connecticut law, video-only recording in public is generally lawful. The federal Wiretap Act (-2522) covers only "aural transfers" containing the human voice; silent video recording is not an interception under § 2511. Connecticut follows the same principle at the state level: its eavesdropping statutes address the interception of oral communications, not visual observation in public.

The constitutional baseline comes from 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, 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 do not violate Connecticut law on that basis alone.

Private spaces present a categorically different analysis. In any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical person and conduct, such as a home, hotel room, medical office, or other enclosed space where entry requires permission or where intimate conduct occurs, recording without consent can be both a civil intrusion and a criminal voyeurism violation. The distinction is between the reduced privacy expectation of being seen in public and the strong privacy expectation in spaces where people reasonably believe they will not be observed or recorded.

Semi-public spaces introduce a middle category. A workplace break room, a private conference room, a restaurant booth occupied by two people having a quiet conversation, or a therapy office are all spaces where a person might be in a location generally accessible to others yet still have a reasonable expectation that their words and actions are not being captured on video. In those contexts, video recording alone may support a civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, even if no spoken audio is captured.

This is the central legal risk for smart glasses in Connecticut. The state's eavesdropping statutes draw on a critical distinction between in-person conversations and telephone calls, with different consent standards for each.

In-person oral conversations (criminal eavesdropping, §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189): Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping statute defines two forms of eavesdropping. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional recording of a conversation "by a person not present thereat": the statute's own text excludes present participants from its reach. A person who is physically present and taking part in the conversation is not a person "not present thereat," so the criminal prohibition does not apply to that person's own recording. This is the participant exception for in-person conversations, confirmed by State v. DeMartin, 171 Conn. 524 (1976), which recognized that a party to a communication may lawfully record it under §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189.

What this means for smart glasses: if you are having a face-to-face conversation with another person and you activate the audio recording function on your glasses, you are a present participant and you do not violate §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189. The other party need not separately consent for the recording to be lawful criminally.

However, "private" is the operative word. Section 53a-187 applies to private oral communications. A conversation held in a quiet office or a private meeting is a private oral communication; a conversation shouted across a crowded public square, where anyone nearby could hear it, may not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. Smart glasses wearers must assess whether the conversation they are capturing would reasonably be understood by participants as private.

Phone calls (civil statute, § 52-570d): Connecticut's civil wiretapping statute takes a stricter position on telephonic communications. Under § 52-570d, all parties to a phone call must consent to recording, and the statute contains no participant exception. Even a person who is themselves a party to the call may not record it without the other parties' consent unless one of three compliance methods is followed: (1) obtaining written consent from all parties before the call; (2) providing a recorded verbal notification at the beginning of the call; or (3) using an automatic beep-tone that sounds at intervals of approximately 15 seconds throughout the call. Violating § 52-570d does not expose a person to criminal liability but does create civil liability for actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. Recordings made in violation of § 52-570d are also inadmissible in any Connecticut proceeding.

Smart glasses connected to a smartphone that also records the audio of phone calls therefore implicate § 52-570d. If the glasses' recording function is active during a phone conversation and captures that audio, all-party consent or one of the beep-tone alternatives is required.

The practical split: Connecticut is therefore a nuanced state. For in-person conversations, participants recording their own conversations have the benefit of the criminal participant exception. For phone calls, all-party consent is required, without exception, under the civil statute. This makes Connecticut a state where smart glasses users must think carefully about which mode of communication is being recorded.

For a detailed breakdown of both the criminal and civil consent rules, see the Connecticut recording laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Private Spaces

Connecticut's voyeurism statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a, draws an absolute line that no consent analysis can overcome. The statute criminalizes secretly photographing, filming, videotaping, or otherwise recording a person who is not in plain view, without that person's knowledge and consent, under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, when the recording is done either (1) with malice, or (2) with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of the recorder or any other person. Both prongs are independent grounds for a violation: a recording motivated by ill will or harassment satisfies the "with malice" prong even without any sexual intent.

Protected locations under § 53a-189a include bathrooms, restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, changing areas, bedrooms, and any other space where a person would reasonably expect that their physical person or intimate conduct will not be observed or recorded. This prohibition applies to smart glasses exactly as it applies to hidden cameras, body cameras, or any other recording device. The wearable and innocuous appearance of smart glasses does not create an exception.

The penalties are significant. A first-offense violation of § 53a-189a is a Class D felony, carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. The offense is elevated to a Class C felony, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, if the victim is under 16 years of age or for repeat offenders.

Separately, § 53a-189b makes the dissemination of images obtained in violation of § 53a-189a its own Class D felony, with the same penalty range of up to 5 years and up to $5,000 in fines. This means that even sharing or posting footage obtained through voyeuristic recording creates independent criminal exposure beyond the original capture.

The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act () provides a parallel floor at the federal level for recordings on federal property. State law applies everywhere else, and § 53a-189a's reach covers all locations in Connecticut.

Watch out: The fact that smart glasses look like ordinary eyewear is not a defense; it is an aggravating factor. A court assessing whether recording was "secret" under § 53a-189a would consider that the device was indistinguishable from normal glasses, strengthening the inference that the wearer intended the recording to go undetected. Activate the capture LED and keep it visible at all times.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

Connecticut 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 RCW Chapter 19.375 as of June 2026. A Connecticut 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.

However, the absence of a Connecticut-specific biometric statute does not mean facial recognition via smart glasses is consequence-free. Civil liability under the common-law privacy torts remains available. 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 I-XRAY demonstration in October 2024, where Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio showed that Meta Ray-Ban glasses combined with a third-party facial-recognition tool could identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers, illustrates the type of conduct that could satisfy both the intent and offensiveness elements of this tort. The intrusion itself creates liability regardless of whether the information is published or shared.

If a smart glasses user in Connecticut operates across state lines or serves customers in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states apply to 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. A Connecticut-based business deploying facial-recognition smart glasses that interact with Illinois residents faces exposure under BIPA regardless of where the business is headquartered.

Connecticut residents who use smart glasses with facial-recognition features in their own state should note that broader consumer privacy legislation continues to develop at the state level nationally. Connecticut's own data privacy law, while not specifically addressing biometric identifiers with the same granularity as BIPA, imposes general requirements on personal data processing. The legal landscape in this area is evolving.

Penalties for Violating Connecticut's Eavesdropping Laws

Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping penalties provide meaningful deterrent. Violating the eavesdropping statute under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189 is classified as a Class D felony. Class D felony penalties under Connecticut law carry imprisonment of 1 to 5 years and a fine of up to $5,000.

The civil statute, § 52-570d, does not impose criminal penalties but creates civil liability. A person who records a phone call in violation of § 52-570d is liable for the other party's actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. The inadmissibility rule also means that recordings made in violation of § 52-570d cannot be used as evidence in any Connecticut legal proceeding, eliminating a common purpose for recording.

For voyeurism under § 53a-189a, a first offense is a Class D felony (up to 5 years, up to $5,000 fine). The offense becomes a Class C felony (up to 10 years) when the victim is a minor under 16 or the defendant has prior convictions under the same statute. Disseminating voyeuristic material under § 53a-189b carries its own Class D felony exposure, independently from the underlying capture.

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; Connecticut's state statutes apply to conduct within Connecticut.

Violation	Statute	Classification	Imprisonment	Fine
Criminal eavesdropping	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189	Class D felony	1-5 years	Up to $5,000
Voyeurism (first offense)	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a	Class D felony	Up to 5 years	Up to $5,000
Voyeurism (victim under 16 or repeat)	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a	Class C felony	Up to 10 years	Varies
Dissemination of voyeuristic images	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189b	Class D felony	Up to 5 years	Up to $5,000
Phone recording without consent (civil)	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d	Civil liability	N/A	Actual damages + fees
Federal wiretap violation		Federal felony	Up to 5 years	$10,000+ statutory

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Connecticut

Following a few straightforward practices significantly reduces legal exposure when using smart glasses in Connecticut.

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, which strengthens evidence of intentional covert recording, the exact intent that aggravates eavesdropping and voyeurism charges.

Say something before recording audio. For in-person conversations, Connecticut's criminal participant exception under State v. DeMartin means you do not need the other party's separate consent to record a conversation you are part of. But in practice, announcing "I'm recording this" before activating audio removes all ambiguity and eliminates any argument that the conversation was "private" in the sense that the other party had a reasonable expectation it would not be recorded.

Treat phone calls differently. When smart glasses are active during a phone call, apply § 52-570d's all-party consent rule. Use a recorded notification at the start of the call, provide written consent in advance, or configure a beep-tone system. Do not rely on the in-person participant exception for telephonic calls; that exception does not extend to § 52-570d.

Never record in private spaces. Bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and bedrooms are absolute prohibitions under § 53a-189a. This is true regardless of any consent consideration. Remove or deactivate smart glasses before entering these spaces.

Avoid facial-recognition features. Even without a Connecticut biometric statute, using facial recognition to identify individuals without their knowledge creates exposure under common-law privacy torts. In professional or commercial contexts, use only with explicit disclosed consent.

Understand the distinction between public events and private conversations in public. Recording video of a public event or street scene is generally lawful. Recording the audio of a quiet private conversation that happens to occur in a public cafe, park bench, or other nominally public space can still constitute eavesdropping on a private oral communication if the parties had a reasonable expectation their words would remain between them.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about Connecticut recording consent law, eavesdropping statutes, and voyeurism law as they apply to smart glasses. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The statutes and case law discussed reflect their in-force versions as of June 7, 2026. Laws may change; always verify current statute text with the Connecticut General Assembly's official publication or a licensed Connecticut 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 Connecticut.

Last updated: 2026-06-07. Statutes cited reflect their in-force versions as of 2026-06-07.

More Connecticut Recording and Privacy Laws

More Connecticut Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Are smart glasses legal in Connecticut?

Yes. Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Connecticut. No Connecticut statute restricts the device itself. The legal analysis focuses on how the glasses are used, specifically whether the audio recording function captures private oral communications or whether the device is used in spaces where voyeurism law applies.

Do I need consent to record audio with smart glasses in Connecticut?

For in-person conversations, Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping statute (§ 53a-189) is satisfied when the person recording is a participant in the conversation, under the participant exception recognized in State v. DeMartin (1976). For phone calls, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d requires all-party consent with no participant exception; compliance requires written consent, a recorded verbal notification, or a beep-tone every 15 seconds.

Is Connecticut a two-party consent state for recording?

Connecticut's consent rules depend on the type of communication. For in-person oral conversations, the criminal statute allows a participant to record their own conversation without separately obtaining the other party's consent. For phone calls, the civil statute (§ 52-570d) requires all-party consent with no participant exception. The state is sometimes called all-party for phone calls and participant-exception for in-person recordings.

Can I record a conversation at work with smart glasses in Connecticut?

Recording an in-person workplace conversation you are part of is not criminally prohibited under Connecticut's eavesdropping statute, given the participant exception. However, workplace recordings may implicate employer policies, Connecticut's employer monitoring statute (§ 31-48d), and civil claims. If the recording occurs via phone, all-party consent is required under § 52-570d. Always check your employer's recording policy before recording at work.

What happens if I record someone in a bathroom or locker room with smart glasses in Connecticut?

Recording in a bathroom, locker room, changing room, or bedroom constitutes voyeurism under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189a, regardless of any consent analysis. A first offense is a Class D felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000. If the victim is under 16 or the offender is a repeat violator, the offense rises to a Class C felony with up to 10 years imprisonment.

Can I be sued for recording someone with smart glasses in Connecticut?

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. Violating § 52-570d for phone calls adds civil liability for actual damages, costs, and attorney fees.

Is facial recognition with smart glasses legal in Connecticut?

Connecticut 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 in connection with individuals who are residents of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states may apply.

Does the capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses matter legally in Connecticut?

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.

Can I wear smart glasses while driving in Connecticut?

Connecticut's distracted-driving law restricts the use of handheld mobile electronic devices while driving. Whether wearing smart glasses while driving violates distracted-driving statutes depends on the specific activity, whether actively recording or streaming video while driving presents a greater risk than using the glasses for passive navigation. The legal status of smart glasses for navigation use is not explicitly resolved in Connecticut law as of June 2026. Watching video or engaging in non-driving activities on a heads-up display while operating a vehicle creates significantly greater legal and safety risk.

What should I do before recording audio with smart glasses in Connecticut?

For in-person conversations, announcing that you are recording removes any ambiguity about whether the communication was understood to be private. For phone calls, provide a recorded notification at the call's start, obtain written consent, or configure a beep-tone system to comply with § 52-570d. Always keep the capture LED unobstructed, and never record in bathrooms, locker rooms, or other private spaces regardless of any consent consideration.

Updates

August 24, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 7, 2026

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.

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925

§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 21 of our articles

(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 22 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.

Leading cases:

Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Connecticut Audio Recording Laws: Mixed Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Connecticut Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026)

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952

§ 53a-187Definitions. Applicability.In forcecited in 18 of our articles

(a) The following definitions are applicable to sections 53a-188 and 53a-189: (1) “Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 12 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Connecticut courts read section 53a-187's definitions to reach only surreptitious, nonconsensual monitoring. State v. Grullon (1989) applied it to place one-party-consent recordings outside the eavesdropping statutes, and Washington v. Meachum (1996) held those statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is monitored.

Leading cases:

State v. Grullon (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1989, 212 Conn. 195)✓Police recorded the defendant's calls with his brother, who consented; the court held that replacing the older wiretap penal statute with section 53a-187, which reaches recording only when no party consents, gave no reason to exclude the transcripts.
Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing nonprivileged collect calls to be monitored after posted signs, signed forms and a recurring tone; reading section 53a-187's consent-based definitions, the court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows.
State v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 224 Conn. 593)✓Police used a scanner in a neighbor's apartment to record a couple's cordless phone calls; the court rejected the State's argument that a 1989 amendment adding cellular phones to section 53a-187's wiretapping definition left cordless calls unprotected, and ordered suppression.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Connecticut Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Connecticut Medical Recording Laws: Patients, Doctors, and HIPAA Rules (2026), Connecticut Phone Call Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

§ 53a-189Eavesdropping: Class D felony.In forcecited in 16 of our articles

(a) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation. (b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 14 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2020

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington v. Meachum (1996) held the eavesdropping statutes, section 53a-189 among them, are violated only when neither party to a call knows it is being monitored. State v. McLoughlin (1998), a trial court ruling on a scanner intercept, read 53a-189 to cover cordless calls, a question no Connecticut appellate court had decided.

Leading cases:

State v. McLoughlin (Connecticut Superior Court 1998, 45 Conn. Super. Ct. 497)“…on. Subsequently, the defendant was charged in violation of General Statutes § 53a-189, eavesdropping, which is a class D felo…”
Rado v. Board of Education of the Borough of Naugatuck (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1990, 216 Conn. 541)✓A tenured teacher acquitted of eavesdropping was fired after a panel found he tampered with the school phone system to overhear staff calls; the court treated that conduct as proscribed by section 53a-189 and upheld the moral-misconduct finding.
Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing officials to monitor and record their nonprivileged phone calls; the Connecticut Supreme Court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is being monitored, so the noticed recording was lawful.

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, Connecticut AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Connecticut Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026

§ 53a-189aVoyeurism: Class D or C felony.In forcecited in 13 of our articles

(a) A person is guilty of voyeurism when, (1) with malice, such person knowingly photographs, films, videotapes or otherwise records the image of another person (A) without the knowledge and consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, (2) with intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of such person or any other person, such person knowingly photographs, films, videotapes or otherwise records the image of another person (A) without the knowledge and consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, (3) with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of such person, commits simple trespass, as provided in section 53a-110a, and observes, in other than a casual or cursory manner, another person (A) without the knowledge or consent of such other person, (B) while such other person is inside a dwelling, as defined in section 53a-100, and not in plain view, and (C) under circumstances where such other person has a reasonable…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 6 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State v. Panek (2018) the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the 'not in plain view' element of section 53a-189a refers to the view of the general public, not of the person recording, and that the statute reaches a nonconsensual recording made in the victim's immediate presence. It rejected a vagueness challenge.

Leading cases:

State v. Panek (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2018, 328 Conn. 219)✓A man secretly recorded women during sexual encounters in his own home and argued they were in his plain view, so the voyeurism statute did not reach him; the Connecticut Supreme Court held the 'not in plain view' element refers to the public's view, reversing the dismissal.
Middlesex Insurance v. Mara (District Court, D. Connecticut 2010, 699 F. Supp. 2d 439)✓Neighbors sued a homeowner for a campaign of harassment, including a voyeurism count under the statute for videotaping a woman; the federal court found every count alleged intentional acts excluded from his homeowner's policy and declared the insurer had no duty to defend.
Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…ev. Stat. Ann. §§ 18-9-301(8), 18-9- 304(1)(a) Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-189a(a)(1); Connecticut v. Panek, 177 A.3d 1…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Connecticut Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026), Connecticut School Recording Laws: Students, Teachers, and Campus Rules (2026), Connecticut Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Workplace Rules (2026)

§ 53a-189bDisseminating voyeuristic material: Class D felony.In force

(a) A person is guilty of disseminating voyeuristic material when such person disseminates a photograph, film, videotape or other recorded image of another person without the consent of such other person and knowing that such photograph, film, videotape or image was taken, made or recorded in violation of section 53a-189a. (b) Disseminating voyeuristic material is a class D felony.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2014

Leading cases:

United States v. Thoms (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 2014)“…constitutional 3 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3019 (2006); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-189b (2013); D.C. Code § 22-3531 (2013); Fla…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

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: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)

§ 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: Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules, Louisiana Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Connecticut?

Recording Video in Public Versus Private Spaces

Recording Audio and Connecticut's Consent Rule

Where You Cannot Record: Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Private Spaces

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

Penalties for Violating Connecticut's Eavesdropping Laws

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Connecticut

Disclaimer

More Connecticut Recording and Privacy Laws

More Connecticut Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Are smart glasses legal in Connecticut?

Do I need consent to record audio with smart glasses in Connecticut?

Is Connecticut a two-party consent state for recording?

Can I record a conversation at work with smart glasses in Connecticut?

What happens if I record someone in a bathroom or locker room with smart glasses in Connecticut?

Can I be sued for recording someone with smart glasses in Connecticut?

Is facial recognition with smart glasses legal in Connecticut?

Does the capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses matter legally in Connecticut?

Can I wear smart glasses while driving in Connecticut?

What should I do before recording audio with smart glasses in Connecticut?

Updates

The Law Behind This Article

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952

United States Code Title 18

Sources and References