Florida
Florida 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 Florida, but Florida's all-party consent law makes the audio-recording capability a serious legal risk. Under the Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.03, every participant in a private oral conversation must consent before any recording takes place. Recording audio without that consent is a third-degree felony, even if you are one of the people in the conversation. Video captured in public spaces is generally lawful on its own; the danger with smart glasses is that they capture audio and video simultaneously, and that audio component triggers Florida's strict criminal statute the moment a private conversation is recorded.
Are smart glasses legal to own and wear in Florida?
Smart glasses, including Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses and similar wearable cameras, are legal to purchase, own, and wear in Florida. No Florida statute prohibits the device itself. The legal questions arise entirely from what the device is used to record, where, and whether the people being recorded have consented.
Florida law does not single out smart glasses or any specific recording technology. What matters is the nature of the communication being captured and the privacy expectations of the people involved. A device that looks like ordinary eyewear but continuously captures audio and video creates exactly the kind of covert-recording risk that Florida's Security of Communications Act was designed to address.
Meta's official guidance acknowledges this responsibility: the company advises users to "obey the law" and not use glasses to infringe on privacy rights, and it built a capture LED into the device that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording. Florida law, however, does not depend on whether the LED is lit or covered. What matters is whether every participant in a private conversation consented before audio capture began.
Recording video in public vs. private spaces
Video recording in Florida is governed by a straightforward principle: people in open public spaces have a reduced expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed. Sidewalks, parks, shopping centers, public streets, and similar spaces are areas where anyone may be seen by others. Recording video of people in these settings, without audio capture, is generally lawful under both federal and Florida law.
The distinction between public and private spaces matters a great deal for smart glasses users. Recording video inside a private residence, a medical office, a hotel room, or any space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation is a different matter. Secretly recording someone who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body in those settings, without that person's knowledge and consent, crosses into digital voyeurism territory under Fla. Stat. § 810.145 (discussed below).
The legal complexity with smart glasses is that video and audio are captured together in a single file. A wearer recording a street scene is simultaneously capturing the audio of any nearby conversation. Even if the video component is perfectly lawful, the audio component may not be. Florida's consent statute does not care whether audio was the primary purpose of the recording or an incidental byproduct of running the camera.
Recording audio and the all-party consent rule
The Florida Security of Communications Act, codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 934.01 through 934.43, is Florida's state-level analog to the federal Wiretap Act. Where the two laws differ, Florida's stricter standard controls for recordings made in Florida.
The core consent rule
Fla. Stat. § 934.03(1) makes it a crime to intentionally intercept, or attempt to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication without authorization. The lawful path under § 934.03(2)(d) requires that all parties to the communication give prior consent. Florida recognizes no general citizen one-party exception: being a participant in a conversation does not entitle you to record it without the other participants' knowledge and agreement.
What counts as a protected "oral communication"
Not every spoken word in public is protected under § 934.03. Florida Statute § 934.02(2) defines an "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." This is a two-part test: the speaker must have a subjective expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
A person shouting at a street corner in a crowd has no reasonable expectation that passersby will not hear the words. A person having a quiet conversation with a colleague in an office break room, a restaurant booth, or a car almost certainly does. The practical risk for smart glasses wearers is that this line is drawn by courts after the fact. Many ordinary conversations that look casual qualify as protected oral communications because the participants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of what they were saying.
How the federal baseline interacts with Florida law
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) establishes a one-party consent baseline: a person who is a party to a conversation may record it without notifying anyone else, under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Florida does not follow this baseline. Florida law is more restrictive, and under the federal Act, more restrictive state laws override the federal one-party rule for intrastate recordings. Recording a private conversation in Florida without all-party consent violates § 934.03 even if it would be federally permissible.
For conversations crossing state lines, courts generally apply the stricter standard. If one party is in Florida, applying Florida's all-party requirement is the only safe approach.
Smart glasses and the all-party consent risk
Smart glasses present a specific danger in Florida that differs from holding up a visible phone: the recording is invisible to participants. The device looks like eyewear. A Florida wearer who starts the recording function before entering a meeting, a client consultation, a family dinner, or any private conversation has captured audio without the other participants' knowledge or consent. Under § 934.03(1), the act of interception is the offense; the recording does not need to be shared or used for criminal liability to attach.
Florida prosecutors have pursued § 934.03 charges in workplace, domestic, and business contexts. The criminal exposure from covert smart-glasses audio recording in a two-party consent state like Florida is not theoretical.
Where secret recording is a separate crime: digital voyeurism
Florida Statute § 810.145 criminalizes digital voyeurism independently of the consent analysis under § 934.03. The statute prohibits intentionally using an imaging device to secretly view, broadcast, or record a person, without that person's knowledge and consent, who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The act must be for amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading, exploiting, or abusing the person. A separate provision covers secretly recording under or through the clothing a person is wearing to view the body or undergarments.
The statute defines "imaging device" broadly as any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device, which covers smart glasses exactly as it covers hidden cameras or smartphones. The wearable form factor does not create an exception.
The statute defines a reasonable expectation of privacy as circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe they could fully disrobe in privacy without being viewed or recorded. Its listed examples include:
- The interior of a residential dwelling
- Bathrooms
- Changing rooms, fitting rooms, and dressing rooms
- Tanning booths
The list is not exhaustive, so locker rooms and gym showers fit the same description. The location alone does not complete the offense; the other elements still apply. A violation is a third-degree felony under § 810.145 for anyone 19 years of age or older, carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. A person under 19 commits a first-degree misdemeanor. A second offense elevates to a second-degree felony carrying up to 15 years in prison. Recording a victim under 16 also elevates to a second-degree felony if the offender is 24 or older, or 18 or older and in a position of authority over the victim (such as a parent, guardian, or school employee).
Fla. Stat. § 810.145(7)(b) adds a separate, broader enhancement that applies regardless of the victim's age: if the offender is 19 or older and is a family or household member of the victim, or holds a position of authority or trust with the victim, the court reclassifies the felony to the next higher degree (third-degree becomes second-degree, second-degree becomes first-degree). This can reach an adult victim recorded by a spouse, roommate, or employer, not only the child-victim scenario above.
Distribution or sale of voyeuristic recordings is a separate third-degree felony offense for each act of distribution.
The 2024 legislative amendment (Chapter 2024-132) renamed the offense from "video voyeurism" to "digital voyeurism," explicitly recognizing that the statute covers all modern imaging technology. A smart glasses wearer who secretly records someone undressing in a locker room or restroom, without that person's knowledge and consent, faces these charges in addition to any § 934.03 violations.
Facial recognition and biometric privacy in Florida
Florida does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or Texas' Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). As of June 2026, Florida has not enacted legislation requiring notice or consent before capturing face geometry through apps connected to smart glasses or similar devices.
This does not mean facial recognition use via smart glasses is legally unrestricted in Florida. Two other legal frameworks still apply:
Federal and civil-tort exposure. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B recognizes intrusion upon seclusion as a civil cause of action when a person intentionally intrudes on another's solitude in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Covertly identifying strangers using facial recognition (extracting names, addresses, or other personal details) could satisfy this tort even without a published Florida biometric statute. The intrusion itself, not the sharing of information, creates liability.
Multi-state and federal context. If a Florida-based smart glasses user runs a facial recognition application that processes or stores biometric data in Illinois (subject to BIPA), Texas (subject to CUBI), or Washington (subject to RCW Chapter 19.375), those states' laws may still apply depending on where the data is processed and stored. BIPA in particular allows private lawsuits with statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person per violation. A Floridian using an Illinois-based cloud service to run facial recognition is not automatically outside BIPA's reach.
The I-XRAY demonstration in October 2024, in which Harvard students combined Meta Ray-Ban glasses with third-party facial recognition software to identify strangers on the street in real time, showed that this risk is not hypothetical. The glasses provided the camera; the identification was done by third-party software. Florida users who install similar third-party applications take on the legal exposure those applications create.
Penalties for illegal recording in Florida
Criminal penalties under § 934.03
A standard violation of Florida's Security of Communications Act is a third-degree felony. Florida third-degree felonies carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine under Fla. Stat. §§ 775.082 and 775.083.
The same third-degree felony classification applies to disclosing or using communications that were illegally intercepted; sharing a recording you were not supposed to make is separately criminal from making it.
A limited exception reduces a first-offense interception of unencrypted, publicly accessible radio communications to a first-degree misdemeanor (1 year, $1,000 fine). This exception has no application to recording private conversations.
Civil penalties under § 934.10
Florida Statute § 934.10 provides a private right of action for victims of illegal interception. A prevailing plaintiff may recover:
- Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
- Injunctive or declaratory relief
The $100-per-day minimum is cumulative for ongoing violations. A recording that captured two weeks of workplace conversations could support liquidated damages calculated across each day the violation continued.
Practical guidance for Florida smart glasses wearers
Disclose before you record audio. In Florida, the safe practice is to announce that you are recording before activating the audio function near any person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications. Obtaining explicit verbal or written agreement is the only way to ensure compliance with § 934.03.
Let the LED operate as intended. Meta's capture LED was designed to signal to nearby people that recording is occurring. Florida law does not make the LED a substitute for consent, but covering or disabling it removes the only visible cue that recording is happening and strengthens evidence of knowing, intentional interception.
Video-only use in public is lower risk. If you use smart glasses to capture video only in public spaces, without capturing audio of private conversations, the legal risk under § 934.03 is substantially reduced. Be aware, however, that the default configuration of most smart glasses records audio simultaneously with video, and the audio track is what triggers the Florida statute.
Keep recording glasses off in restrooms and locker rooms. Secretly recording anyone who is dressing, undressing, or exposing the body in these spaces, without their knowledge and consent, is a felony under § 810.145. Walking in with the glasses recording is not itself the offense, but it is the most direct way to capture someone undressing, so stop recording or remove the glasses before you enter.
Exercise caution with facial recognition applications. Florida has no biometric consent statute, but civil tort exposure and out-of-state biometric laws (BIPA, CUBI) can still reach Florida users depending on where data is processed.
Recording police in public is generally lawful. On-duty law enforcement officers performing their public duties have no reasonable expectation of privacy under § 934.02(2)'s own logic; courts have consistently held that public officials exercising public power in public view do not satisfy the statute's privacy expectation threshold. Smart glasses recording of police interactions in public is generally protected under First Amendment principles, though Fla. Stat. § 843.31 makes it a second-degree misdemeanor, after a verbal warning, to knowingly and willfully approach or remain within 25 feet of a first responder with the intent to impede or interfere with their duties, threaten them with physical harm, or harass them.
Florida smart glasses recording laws at a glance
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent rule | All-party (every participant must consent) |
| Governing statute | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 |
| "Oral communication" definition | Any utterance by a person with a reasonable expectation it will not be intercepted (§ 934.02(2)) |
| Criminal penalty for violation | Third-degree felony: up to 5 years, $5,000 fine |
| Civil minimum damages | $1,000 or $100/day, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorney fees (§ 934.10) |
| Video in public (no audio) | Generally lawful |
| Restrooms / locker rooms | Secretly recording someone undressing without knowledge and consent is a felony (§ 810.145) |
| Biometric/facial recognition law | No dedicated FL statute; civil-tort and out-of-state BIPA/CUBI exposure may apply |
| Recording police in public | Generally lawful |
More Florida Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use smart glasses to record in Florida?
You can record video in public spaces without audio. Recording the audio of any private conversation requires the consent of every participant under Fla. Stat. § 934.03. Doing so without all-party consent is a third-degree felony regardless of whether you are one of the speakers.
Does Florida's all-party consent law apply to smart glasses?
Yes. Florida's Security of Communications Act applies to any interception of an oral communication, regardless of the device used. Smart glasses recording audio of a private conversation without all-party consent violates § 934.03 exactly as a hidden microphone would.
What is the penalty for illegally recording someone in Florida with smart glasses?
A violation of § 934.03 is a third-degree felony carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The victim can also sue civilly for at least $1,000 or $100 per day of violation (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and attorney fees under § 934.10.
Do I need consent if I am part of the conversation I am recording in Florida?
Yes. Florida provides no one-party consent exception for private citizens. Being a participant in the conversation does not allow you to record it without the other participants' knowledge and agreement. All parties must consent before recording begins.
Are smart glasses legal in a Florida restroom or locker room?
Wearing them is not itself a crime, but recording there is high risk. Secretly recording a person who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body in a restroom, locker room, changing room, or similar space, without that person's knowledge and consent, is a separate felony under Florida's digital voyeurism law, Fla. Stat. § 810.145, when done for amusement, gratification, profit, or to degrade or abuse the person. Keep the camera off in these spaces.
Does the Meta Ray-Ban LED light satisfy Florida's consent requirement?
No. The LED indicates that the camera is active, but it is not a substitute for obtaining consent. Florida § 934.03 requires that all parties give prior consent before recording begins. The LED provides notice to bystanders but does not constitute consent from them.
Can I record police with smart glasses in Florida?
Yes, in public spaces. On-duty law enforcement officers performing public duties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy that would trigger § 934.03. Recording police in public is generally protected under the First Amendment. Separately, Fla. Stat. § 843.31 makes it a second-degree misdemeanor to approach or remain within 25 feet of a first responder after a verbal warning when you intend to impede their duties, threaten them, or harass them; it does not change the audio consent rules.
Does Florida have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses facial recognition?
Florida does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute as of June 2026. However, using smart glasses with facial recognition apps that process data in Illinois, Texas, or Washington may trigger those states' biometric consent laws (BIPA, CUBI, RCW 19.375), and civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claims are still available under Florida common law.
Updates
Corrected our description of Florida's digital voyeurism law (§ 810.145) to reflect its knowledge-and-consent, purpose and undressing elements, and clarified the intent requirement and misdemeanor penalty of the 25-foot first responder law (§ 843.31).
Added Florida's separate digital-voyeurism penalty enhancement (Fla. Stat. § 810.145(7)(b)), which raises the felony degree for offenders who are family/household members of the victim or hold a position of authority or trust, applying to victims of any age, not only the child-victim enhancement the page already covered.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 53 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) 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:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Florida Dashcam Laws: Rules for Dashboard Cameras (2026), Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026)
§ 810.145Digital voyeurism.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image or visual recording with the intent that it be viewed by another person. (b) “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in s. 741.28. (c) “Imaging device” means any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device; still camera; camcorder; motion picture camera; or any other instrument, equipment, or format capable of recording, storing, or transmitting visual images of another person. (d) “Position of authority or trust” means a position occupied by a person 18 years of age or older who is a relative, caregiver, coach, employer, or other person who, by reason of his or her relationship with the victim, is able to exercise undue influence over him or her or exploit his or her trust. (e) “Privately exposing the body” means exposing a sexual organ.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (2015) rejected a facial overbreadth challenge to section 810.145, holding the video voyeurism statute regulates conduct, not pure speech. Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc. (2024) drew on its privacy definition and exemption for clearly visible cameras when dismissing an intrusion claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2015, 163 So. 3d 683)✓A man caught watching people inside their homes, once carrying a camera, argued Florida's video voyeurism statute was facially overbroad because it could reach journalists and investigators; the court held section 810.145 is not overbroad and affirmed his convictions.
- Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Florida 2024)✓A worker sued over cameras aimed at a workplace changing area; dismissing her intrusion on seclusion claim, the court drew on section 810.145's privacy definition and its exclusion for obvious cameras, and found no authority making an alleged violation outrageous per se.
- Keith Taig v. City of Vero Beach (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2023)✓A spa customer recorded by covert police cameras installed under a court order argued Florida statutes including section 810.145 gave officers clear notice of customers' privacy rights; the court held those state statutes do not clearly establish a federal constitutional right.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Florida Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras and Privacy Rules (2026), Florida Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026)
§ 934.02Definitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
As used in this chapter:(1) “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 intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications or communications affecting intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce. (2) “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 and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication. (3) “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.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dorsey v. State (Supreme Court of Florida 1981, 402 So. 2d 1178)“…on." These definitions, found in subsections (1) and (2) of section 934.02, Florida Statutes (1977), are as follows: "Wire communi…”
- Sogo v. GARCIA'S NAT. GUN, INC. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1993, 615 So. 2d 184)“…business hours by any law enforcement agency as defined in Section 934.02, Florida Statutes. (d) Exceptions. The following shal…”
- Shaktman v. State (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1988, 529 So. 2d 711)“…uded pen registers in its list of definitions enumerated in section 934.02, Florida Statutes (1983). The absence of pen registers in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Calls (2026), Florida Nursing Home Camera Laws (2026): No Statute, Bill Pending
§ 934.10Civil remedies.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(1) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of ss. 934.03-934.09 shall have a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use, such communications and shall be entitled to recover from any such person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate, including:(a) Preliminary or equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (b) 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; (c) Punitive damages; and (d) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (2) A good faith reliance on:(a) A court order, subpoena, or legislative authorization as provided in ss. 934.03-934.09, (b) A request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under s. 934.09(7), or (c) A good faith determination that Florida or federal law, other than 18 U.S.C. s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 33 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Minotty v. Baudo (2010) held the civil action reaches only actual interception, not attempts, and does not cover silent video surveillance. Jatar v. Lamaletto (2000) affirmed summary judgment where the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Burgess v. Burgess (1984) held interspousal immunity does not bar the action.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burgess v. Burgess (Supreme Court of Florida 1984, 447 So. 2d 220)“…mages brought by one spouse against the other spouse, under Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1979)? Burgess v. Burgess, 417 S…”
- Minotty v. Baudo (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2010, 42 So. 3d 824)✓A doctor hid cameras in colleagues' offices, but the microphones never worked, so only silent video was captured. The court held section 934.10 gives a civil claim only for actual interception of oral communications, not attempts or silent video, and reversed those judgments.
- Roberts v. Jardine (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1978, 358 So. 2d 588)✓Sued under section 934.10 for secretly taping a phone call, the defendant refused to answer interrogatories. The court held she could invoke the Fifth Amendment, since interception is also a crime, and could not be defaulted for it, but had to produce the tape already played.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Florida Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026), Florida Video Recording Laws: What You Can and Cannot Record (2026)
§ 843.31Approaching a first responder with specified intent after a warning.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “First responder” includes a law enforcement officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), a correctional probation officer as defined in s. 943.10(3), a firefighter as defined in s. 784.07(1), and an emergency medical care provider as defined in s. 784.07(1). (b) “Harass” means to willfully engage in a course of conduct directed at a first responder which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose. (2)(a) It is unlawful for a person, after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from a person he or she knows or reasonably should know is a first responder, who is engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, to knowingly and willfully violate such warning and approach or remain within 25 feet of the first responder with the intent to:1. Impede or interfere with the first responder’s ability to perform such duty; 2. Threaten the first responder with physical harm; or 3. Harass the first responder. (b) A person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
United States Code Title 18
§ 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, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 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), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 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, California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →