Delaware
Delaware 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 Delaware, but the audio they capture is regulated by two overlapping criminal statutes that together require all-party consent for any private conversation. Video recording in public places is generally lawful; audio recording of a private conversation without the knowledge and consent of every participant exposes the wearer to both felony wiretapping liability under 11 Del. C. § 2402 and misdemeanor privacy liability under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4).
Are smart glasses legal to own and wear in Delaware?
Smart glasses, including Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses, are legal consumer devices in Delaware. The state has enacted no statute banning or restricting the ownership or wearing of smart glasses as of 2026. No pending Delaware legislation specifically targets wearable recording devices. California's SB 1130 would have regulated covert smart-glasses recording, but the Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so California has no wearable-device recording statute either and still applies its all-party consent law.
The Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a built-in capture LED indicator (a white light located near the right frame) that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or livestreaming. Meta's official guidance instructs wearers to let the LED shine and to stop recording if anyone asks them to opt out. The LED is designed to give bystanders notice that recording is occurring, but it does not satisfy Delaware's all-party consent requirement for audio capture.
Wearing the glasses in public, without recording, raises no legal issue. The legal analysis begins the moment the wearer activates audio or video capture.
Recording video in public vs. private spaces
Under the constitutional framework established in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), persons in public spaces (streets, sidewalks, parks, parking lots) have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed and recorded. Silent video recording in these spaces is not a wiretap under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2510(18) limits the Wiretap Act to "aural transfers" containing the human voice), and Delaware's wiretapping chapter similarly targets interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, not silent video.
This means a smart glasses wearer walking through Wilmington and recording video of public streets, storefronts, or events is not violating Delaware wiretapping law by that video capture alone. The same analysis applies to recording an open public meeting under 29 Del. C. § 10004.
The analysis changes significantly in private or semi-private spaces. Inside a private home, a medical office, a restaurant booth, a workplace conference room, or any other space where participants reasonably expect their conversations to be private, even video recording that incidentally captures audio implicates the consent statutes. A smart glasses wearer invited into a private home who silently records the visit is in a legally gray zone for the video; if the glasses capture any audio of conversation, both § 2402 and § 1335(a)(4) are triggered.
The practical takeaway: smart glasses should record video only in plainly public spaces and only audio when every participant in any private conversation present has consented.
Recording audio in Delaware: the two-statute conflict
Delaware is unusual among US states in that two separate criminal statutes govern audio recording, and they conflict on the consent standard. Understanding both is essential for any smart glasses user in the state.
11 Del. C. § 2402: the wiretapping statute
Delaware's wiretapping statute is modeled on the federal Wiretap Act. Section 2402(a) prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Section 2402(c)(4) creates an exception: it is not unlawful for a person who is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, to intercept, provided the interception is not for a criminal or tortious purpose.
On its face, this language permits a smart glasses wearer to record a conversation they are participating in without telling the other party. Violating § 2402 (recording without satisfying even the one-party exception) is a Class E felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.
11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4): the privacy statute
Section 1335, titled "Violation of privacy," operates independently of the wiretapping chapter and sits in a different part of the Delaware Criminal Code. Subsection (a)(4) makes it a criminal offense for any person to "intercept without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation."
The phrase "including private conversation" expressly reaches in-person oral exchanges, not just phone calls or written messages. A smart glasses wearer who records a workplace meeting, a one-on-one conversation, or a personal discussion in any private setting without notifying and obtaining consent from every participant violates § 1335(a)(4). That violation is a Class A misdemeanor under § 1335(c), carrying up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,300.
Why Delaware is treated as all-party consent in practice
The conflict between § 2402(c)(4) (one-party exception) and § 1335(a)(4) (all-party required) has never been definitively resolved by the Delaware Supreme Court or Superior Court. A fifty-year-old federal district court decision, United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (D. Del. 1975), construed § 1335 without addressing § 2402. It rejected an argument that a party's recording of his own telephone calls violated the privacy statute, reasoning that a subscriber may record on his own line and that the statute's drafters appear to have followed federal law, which does not prohibit recording with one party's consent, and it held in any event that federal law, not state law, governed whether the recordings were admissible in the federal trial. That ruling is non-binding on Delaware state courts and is widely regarded as legally unreliable by current practitioners.
Because § 1335(a)(4) independently creates criminal liability even if § 2402(c)(4) offers a defense, and because no court has held the wiretapping chapter to preempt or override the privacy chapter, the safe and standard approach is to treat Delaware as an all-party consent state. A smart glasses wearer in Delaware who records audio of a private conversation without notifying every participant and obtaining their consent risks Class A misdemeanor prosecution under § 1335(a)(4), even if § 2402(c)(4) might theoretically provide a partial defense.
This dual-statute exposure is directly relevant to smart glasses because the covert appearance of the device makes non-consensual recording easy and the resulting criminal exposure real.
Recording audio of private conversations: what all-party consent means for wearers
In a two-party (all-party) consent state like Delaware, the smart glasses wearer cannot simply inform one participant that recording is occurring and rely on that consent to record everyone. Every person whose private conversation is captured must know and agree to the recording.
For smart glasses, this creates a practical challenge: the glasses look like ordinary eyewear, so bystanders and conversation partners may have no idea recording is occurring. The Meta capture LED helps, but it does not substitute for verbal or written consent from each participant.
Safe practices for smart glasses audio recording in Delaware include:
- Verbally announcing at the start of any private conversation that the glasses are recording and waiting for explicit agreement from every participant before the recording continues.
- For business or professional meetings, obtaining written consent before the meeting begins rather than relying on verbal confirmation.
- Turning off audio capture when in any semi-private space (restaurants, break rooms, offices, private vehicles) where participants may expect their conversation to be confidential, unless all-party consent has been obtained.
- Remembering that consent obtained through deception or implied from silence does not satisfy the statute. Consent must be knowing and affirmative.
The all-party consent requirement applies regardless of whether the conversation is in person, on the phone, or transmitted electronically. A smart glasses wearer in Delaware calling someone in a one-party consent state must still comply with § 1335(a)(4) as to their own conduct.
Where smart glasses may never be used to record
Separate from the audio consent rules, Delaware law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where individuals have an established reasonable expectation of privacy from being visually observed.
Section 1335(a)(6) prohibits recording, without consent, a person who is getting dressed or undressed or whose intimate areas are exposed in any place where persons normally disrobe, including fitting rooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, and bathrooms. Section 1335(a)(7) prohibits secretly recording under or through a person's clothing. Both violations are classified as a Class G felony under § 1335(c), carrying up to two years imprisonment.
These prohibitions apply to smart glasses exactly as they apply to hidden cameras or smartphones. The wearable form factor of glasses does not create any exception. In fact, the covert appearance of smart glasses (indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear) makes their use in these prohibited spaces particularly serious because it demonstrates deliberate concealment of the recording device.
The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1801, independently prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That federal prohibition operates alongside, not instead of, Delaware § 1335.
Smart glasses users must never activate video or audio recording in:
- Restrooms, bathrooms, and toilet facilities
- Locker rooms, gym changing areas, and fitness studio changing rooms
- Fitting rooms and dressing rooms
- Private residential bedrooms or any space in a private home where a person expects to be unobserved
- Medical examination rooms or hospital rooms
Under § 1335(a)(6), recording a person undressing in these spaces is a felony when done without that person's consent, and the consent of someone else present does not satisfy it. Section 1335(a)(7) reaches secret or surreptitious recording under or through clothing.
Facial recognition and biometric data
Delaware has not enacted a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001) as of 2026. There is no Delaware statute that specifically requires written consent before capturing face geometry or enrolling biometric identifiers in a database.
However, using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify individuals without their knowledge raises significant civil liability in Delaware. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, intentional intrusion upon another's seclusion (including electronic intrusion) is an invasion of privacy if it would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. A smart glasses wearer who uses facial recognition to identify strangers on the street and compile personal data about them without their knowledge satisfies both elements of that test.
The 2024 I-XRAY demonstration, in which Harvard students used Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses combined with third-party facial-recognition software to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers, illustrated that this risk is not hypothetical. Delaware residents whose biometric data is captured and processed interstate may also have claims under the laws of the state where processing occurs, including Illinois BIPA claims if the data touches Illinois-based servers.
Wearers who use smart glasses in Delaware for any application involving facial recognition should be aware that no state statute currently grants them permission to do so without consent, and civil intrusion-upon-seclusion liability requires no publication of the data; the act of capture itself can be sufficient.
Penalties summary
| Conduct | Statute | Classification | Max Imprisonment | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretap interception (no valid consent defense) | 11 Del. C. § 2402(a) | Class E Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Disclosure of intercepted communications | 11 Del. C. § 2402(a) | Class E Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Recording without all-party consent (private conversation) | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4) | Class A Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,300 |
| Voyeurism recording in spaces where people disrobe | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(6) | Class G Felony | 2 years | Varies |
| Upskirt / under-clothing recording | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(7) | Class G Felony | 2 years | Varies |
Civil liability under 11 Del. C. § 2409 allows a victim of unlawful interception to recover actual damages (at a minimum $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher), plus punitive damages for willful conduct and reasonable attorney fees. Under § 2409(b), good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under the wiretapping chapter or under any other law.
Both criminal exposure and civil liability are independent: a single act of recording can produce a criminal charge under § 2402 or § 1335(a)(4), plus a civil lawsuit under § 2409 and a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim.
Practical tips for smart glasses users in Delaware
-
Default to verbal disclosure. Before activating audio recording in any private setting, say clearly that you are wearing recording glasses and wait for every person present to affirmatively agree. Do not rely on the LED alone.
-
Turn off audio in semi-private spaces. Restaurants, break rooms, private vehicles, offices, and similar spaces can give rise to private-conversation expectations even though they are not residences. Disable audio or leave the recording function off unless everyone present has consented.
-
Keep the LED visible and unobscured. Meta's capture LED is the primary external signal that recording is occurring. Covering or disabling it eliminates the only visible notice to bystanders and strengthens any prosecution's argument about intent.
-
Never record in spaces where people disrobe. Recording a person undressing there without that person's consent is a Class G felony under § 1335(a)(6), no matter how the recording is used afterward.
-
Treat phone calls as all-party. If you are on a call while wearing recording glasses and the glasses capture the audio, § 1335(a)(4) requires all-party consent for the call recording as well.
-
Business and workplace use requires consent. Workplace meetings, HR conversations, and client calls are private communications under § 1335(a)(4). Obtain written consent before recording any professional interaction in Delaware.
-
Understand that both statutes apply. Because Delaware's two recording statutes conflict and no court has resolved the conflict, you cannot safely rely on the wiretapping chapter's one-party exception to shield recording you do under the privacy chapter. Assume all-party consent is required for every private audio recording in the state.
This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. Recording law applies differently to each situation and can change. Consult a licensed Delaware attorney for advice about your specific circumstances.
More Delaware Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are smart glasses legal in Delaware?
Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Delaware. The legality of using them to record depends on what is captured and where. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful. Audio recording of any private conversation requires the consent of every participant under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4), and recording a person undressing in a restroom or locker room without that person's consent is a Class G felony under § 1335(a)(6).
Is Delaware a one-party or all-party consent state for recording?
Delaware is treated as all-party consent in practice. The wiretapping statute, 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4), technically permits one-party consent recording, but the privacy statute, 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4), independently requires the consent of all parties to a private conversation. The conflict has never been resolved by a Delaware court, and practitioners uniformly treat the state as all-party consent to avoid misdemeanor liability under § 1335.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Delaware without telling everyone?
No. Section 1335(a)(4) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to intercept a private conversation without the consent of all parties, regardless of whether you are a participant. You must inform every person present that recording is occurring and obtain their knowing consent before capturing audio of a private conversation.
What is the penalty for recording someone without consent in Delaware?
Violating the wiretapping statute (11 Del. C. § 2402) is a Class E felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. Recording without all-party consent under § 1335(a)(4) is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,300. Both statutes can apply to the same recording. Civil damages under § 2409 add a minimum of $100 per day or $1,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Can I use smart glasses in a locker room or restroom in Delaware?
No. Recording a person who is dressing, undressing, or exposed in any space where people normally disrobe (including locker rooms, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and fitting rooms), without that person's consent, violates 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(6) as a Class G felony punishable by up to two years imprisonment. The prohibition applies to smart glasses exactly as it does to hidden cameras or smartphones.
Does Delaware have a biometric privacy law that covers smart glasses facial recognition?
Delaware has no dedicated biometric privacy statute as of 2026. However, using smart glasses with facial recognition software to identify individuals without their knowledge can create civil liability for intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. If biometric data is processed in a state with a biometric law such as Illinois (BIPA), the laws of that state may also apply.
Does the Meta capture LED satisfy Delaware's consent requirement?
No. The capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses is a notice mechanism designed by Meta to alert bystanders that recording is occurring. It does not constitute consent by those bystanders. Delaware's § 1335(a)(4) requires each party to a private conversation to affirmatively consent to the recording. The LED may help establish that participants had notice, but notice is not the same as consent.
Can I record police with smart glasses in Delaware?
Yes. Delaware is within the Third Circuit, and Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) recognizes a First Amendment right to record police performing official duties in a public place. Record from a location where you have a lawful right to be, do not interfere with the officers' activities, and maintain a safe distance. The all-party consent rule for audio does not apply to public conduct of police officers performing their duties.
Updates
Corrected the description of United States v. Vespe to what the court actually decided about Delaware's privacy statute and the admissibility of the recordings.
Corrected the description of Delaware's voyeurism provisions to reflect that § 1335(a)(6) requires lack of consent and (a)(7) requires secret recording, and corrected the scope of the § 2409(b) good-faith defense.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 005 (SPECIFIC OFFENSES)
§ 1335Violation of privacy; class A misdemeanor; class G felony.In forcecited in 21 of our articles
(a) A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, the person: (1) Trespasses on property intending to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Installs in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; or (3) Installs or uses outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in that place which would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there; or (4) Intercepts without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation; or (5) Divulges without the consent of the sender and the receiver the existence or contents of any message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately if the accused knows that the message was unlawfully intercepted or if the accused learned of the message in the course of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pulgini (1976) held 11 Del. C. 1335 does not reach police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, so a police interception made with one party's consent was lawful. State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (2026) construed 1335(a)(9)(b) as protecting confidentiality from third parties regardless of whether the relationship has ended.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Pulgini (Superior Court of Delaware 1976, 366 A.2d 1198)✓Police recorded a call between the defendant and an informant with the informant's consent but no court order. The court held section 1335 does not apply to police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, and one-party consent made the interception lawful.
- State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (Delaware Court of Common Pleas 2026)✓Charged after leaving printed intimate photos from a past affair in the woman's shared mailbox, a man sought a pretrial ruling on section 1335(a)(9)(b). On uncontested facts, the court read beyond that relationship as disclosure outside the private relationship, ended or not.
- Duffy v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2019)“…er 2017, Duffy was indicted for Violation of Privacy under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(7). The charges arose from Duffy tak…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Delaware Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy Rights, and Legal Limits (2026), Delaware Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Interstate Calls, and Penalties (2026)
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 024 (WIRETAPPING, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 2402Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications, violations of chapter.In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Prohibited acts. — Except as specifically provided in this chapter or elsewhere in this Code no person shall: (1) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication; (2) Intentionally disclose or endeavor to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this chapter; or (3) Intentionally use or endeavor to use the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this chapter. (b) Penalties for violation of subsection (a) of this section. — Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class E felony and be fined not more than $10,000. (c) Lawful acts.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Dayton v. Collison (2020) applied 11 Del. C. 2402(a)(1), finding neighbors intercepted a homeowner's backyard conversations with a motion-activated video camera, an intrusion upon seclusion. State v. Hunt (2023) said in the alternative that police access to a consenting owner's phone, if an interception, was lawful under 2402(c)(3).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dayton v. Collison (Superior Court of Delaware 2020)✓Neighbors aimed a motion-activated audio and video camera at a man's backyard and recorded his conversations there; after trial the court found they intentionally intercepted oral communications in violation of section 2402(a), and that this was an intrusion on his seclusion.
- Everett v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2018, 186 A.3d 1224)“…d or a location was bugged, and a host of other details.”); 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(3) (authorizing government wiretappi…”
- State v. Hunt (Superior Court of Delaware 2023)✓Police read and answered texts on a cooperating witness's phone with his permission; rejecting a postconviction claim, the court found no interception occurred and reasoned in the alternative that any interception in the drug investigation was lawful under section 2402(c)(3).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Delaware Recording Laws (2026): Two-Statute Consent Conflict, Delaware Security Camera Laws: Residential, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Delaware AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 2409Civil liability; defense to civil or criminal action.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) Civil liability. — Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use the communications and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and, (3) A reasonable attorneys’ fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Defense. — A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter or under any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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)
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 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 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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 →