Iowa
Iowa 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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Iowa, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under Iowa Code § 808B.2, you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants, provided the audio capture is not made for a criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose. Knowingly filming or photographing someone in a state of nudity without consent, where they expect privacy, for a sexual purpose is a separate criminal offense that the one-party consent rule does not excuse.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Iowa?
Yes. Iowa has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under Iowa or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, your role in any conversation being captured, and the purpose of the recording.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Iowa under both state and federal law. When a person is in public (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, or in any location generally accessible to the public), they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger the federal statute. Iowa law tracks this same principle.
This means smart glasses worn at an outdoor event, on a public sidewalk, in a retail store, or in a public government building generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, or a closed meeting room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a workplace break room or a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan's concurrence described a twofold requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy: the person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Iowa courts apply this same framework when evaluating whether a location or conversation is "private" within the meaning of the state's surveillance and voyeurism statutes.
Recording in private places
Iowa Code § 727.8A criminalizes knowingly placing or using a camera or other electronic surveillance device that transmits or records images or data while committing a trespass, with no requirement that the images captured involve nudity or intimate areas. A first offense is an aggravated misdemeanor; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record inside someone's home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private property you have entered without permission implicates this trespass-plus-camera statute; if the recording also captures a person's nudity and is made for a sexual purpose, § 709.21 can apply as well.
Recording Audio and Iowa's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Iowa.
The statute: Iowa Code § 808B.2
Iowa Code § 808B.2 mirrors the structure of the federal Wiretap Act but applies throughout Iowa regardless of whether the recording occurs across state lines. Section 808B.2.1 sets out the general prohibition on unlawfully intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. Section 808B.2.2.c provides the one-party consent exception: interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is not unlawful when the person intercepting is a party to the communication or a party has given prior consent and the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious, or injurious act.
In practice, this means a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation (an employee speaking with a supervisor, a consumer on the phone with a business, or a person having an in-person discussion with a neighbor) may lawfully record that conversation in Iowa without disclosing the recording to the other participants.
Iowa's "injurious act" qualifier
Iowa's one-party exception includes a slightly broader limitation than the federal baseline. The federal exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) bars consent-based recordings made for "a criminal or tortious act." Iowa adds "or any other injurious act" to that list. This means that if the purpose of the recording is to harm someone in a manner that is neither technically criminal nor tortious but is nonetheless injurious (such as to damage a relationship, to use as leverage, or to harass), the consent exception may not apply. In practice the distinction is rarely litigated, but smart glasses users in Iowa should be aware that the law does not give a blanket pass to consent-based recording whenever the recorder's purpose is harmful.
What one-party consent does not cover
The one-party exception applies only when the recorder is a genuine participant in the communication. It does not protect:
- Using smart glasses to record a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of.
- Secretly capturing oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be.
- Recording with the purpose of committing any criminal, tortious, or injurious act against another person.
Recording private conversations of others without participation is an unlawful interception under § 808B.2.1 and a Class D felony.
Practical application
For a smart glasses wearer in Iowa, the one-party consent rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone (at work, at home, over the phone, or in a restaurant) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required.
- Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in is unlawful.
- Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.
For a complete analysis of Iowa's consent framework, see the Iowa Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and the Privacy-of-Nudity Statute
Two Iowa statutes reach video recording that one-party consent does not excuse: § 709.21, which covers filming a person's nudity for a sexual purpose, and § 727.8A, which covers camera use while trespassing. Neither is a blanket ban on recording in every private place, but each carries serious penalties.
Iowa Code § 709.21: Invasion of Privacy (Nudity)
Iowa Code § 709.21 makes it a crime to knowingly view, photograph, or film another person, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, when the other person does not or cannot consent, is in a state of full or partial nudity, and has a reasonable expectation of privacy while in that state. The sexual-purpose element is part of the offense, so the statute is not a strict ban on every nonconsensual image of nudity. The offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, a serious classification in Iowa, and a conviction carries mandatory placement on the sex-offender registry. The covert form factor of smart glasses does not create any exception; if anything, a device designed to look like ordinary eyewear heightens the evidence of intentional concealment.
Iowa Code § 727.8A: Camera-While-Trespassing
Section 727.8A is a general trespass-plus-camera statute: it criminalizes knowingly placing or using any camera or electronic surveillance device that transmits or records images or data while the device is on property you are trespassing on, regardless of what the device captures. It has no intimate-area or nudity element, so a trespasser using any recording device, not just one aimed at a person's body, violates it. A first offense is an aggravated misdemeanor. A subsequent offense escalates to a Class D felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of $1,025 to $10,245.
Where these statutes most often come into play
The nudity statute is most often at issue in restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, and fitting rooms, where people have a clear reasonable expectation of privacy while undressed. No Iowa statute bans recording in a private residence, hotel room, or medical office as such: § 709.21 still requires nudity and a sexual purpose, and § 727.8A requires a trespass. Recording in those places can still raise civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claims and, for audio, the § 808B.2 rules above.
Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Consent under § 709.21 must come from the person being viewed or filmed. The one-party consent rule for conversations does not supply it, and neither does permission from a property owner or any other third party.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Iowa does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).
Iowa enacted the Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act (ICDPA), which took effect January 1, 2025 and covers sensitive personal data including biometric data used to uniquely identify a person. However, the ICDPA is a consumer-rights framework modeled on Virginia's VCDPA rather than an Illinois-style biometric statute. It does not impose per-person statutory damages for each unauthorized face-geometry scan the way BIPA does. Enforcement rests with the Iowa Attorney General; there is no private right of action under the ICDPA.
Under Iowa state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not expose a person to the same direct statutory-damages risk that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the same AG-enforcement risk that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI). That said, Iowa residents are not without recourse. Common-law privacy torts (particularly intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B) apply regardless of any statute. An intentional intrusion upon someone's solitude or private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion.
The practical risk is greatest through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party reverse facial-recognition application. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Iowa users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under Iowa's stalking and harassment statutes.
If an Iowa smart glasses user captures the face of an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition in Iowa.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of oral communication | Iowa Code § 808B.2.1 | Class D felony | 5 years / $1,025–$10,245 fine |
| Camera-while-trespassing (first offense) | Iowa Code § 727.8A | Aggravated misdemeanor | 2 years / $855–$8,540 fine |
| Camera-while-trespassing (subsequent) | Iowa Code § 727.8A | Class D felony | 5 years / $1,025–$10,245 fine |
| Invasion of privacy (nudity) | Iowa Code § 709.21 | Aggravated misdemeanor | 2 years / $855–$8,540 fine + sex-offender registration |
| Surveillance device (lesser offenses) | Iowa Code § 727.8 | Serious misdemeanor | 1 year / $430–$2,560 fine |
Civil remedies under Iowa Code § 808B.8 are independent of criminal prosecution. A plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or a $1,000 minimum, plus a reasonable attorney fee and litigation costs, and punitive damages upon a finding of a willful, malicious, or reckless violation.
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and a civil action in which the court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000 (18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2)).
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Iowa
Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Iowa's one-party consent rule protects only genuine participants in a conversation. If the other person is addressing you directly and you are exchanging words with them, you are a participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the exception and face felony exposure under § 808B.2.
Understand the "injurious act" limit. Iowa's consent exception does not protect recordings made to harm, harass, or leverage another person even if the conduct would not rise to the level of a crime or tort. Keep the purpose of any recording within lawful bounds.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Iowa law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring, which strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent if a dispute arises.
Disclose before sensitive meetings. Iowa law does not require you to disclose recordings of conversations you are part of, but disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting (a job interview, a medical appointment, a legal consultation) eliminates any ambiguity about consent, avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure entirely, and protects the admissibility of the recording if you later need to use it.
Never record in private spaces. Filming a person's nudity without consent for a sexual purpose where they expect privacy is an aggravated misdemeanor under § 709.21, and using any camera while trespassing is a separate crime under § 727.8A. Even where neither statute applies, filming in these spaces invites civil privacy claims. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or any other space where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body.
Watch for cross-border calls. Iowa's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in Iowa. When either party to a call is located in an all-party consent state (including Illinois, which borders Iowa, under 720 ILCS 5/14-2), the stricter law of the other state may apply. Illinois's all-party consent requirement would govern if you are in Iowa but the other party is in Illinois. When in doubt, disclose or confirm the other party's location.
Driving caution. Iowa enacted a handheld-device ban effective January 1, 2026. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Iowa statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use is analogous to a mounted GPS unit. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media posting, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device and remains legally unsettled.
More Iowa Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Iowa a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Iowa is a one-party consent state under Iowa Code § 808B.2. If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. The consent exception does not apply if the recording is made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Iowa without telling the other person?
Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Iowa Code § 808B.2.2.c permits a party to the communication to record it without the knowledge of the other participants. You may not use this exception to record conversations you are not part of, and the purpose of the recording must be lawful.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Iowa?
Unlawfully intercepting an oral communication under § 808B.2.1 is a Class D felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of $1,025 to $10,245. Civil remedies under § 808B.8 add potential liability for the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Iowa?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. Knowingly filming a person in full or partial nudity without consent, where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a restroom, locker room, or changing room), for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification is a crime under Iowa Code § 709.21 (aggravated misdemeanor with mandatory sex-offender registration). Separately, using any camera or surveillance device while trespassing on someone else's property, regardless of what it captures, is a crime under § 727.8A (aggravated misdemeanor, Class D felony on repeat). The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to either statute.
Does Iowa have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?
Iowa's Consumer Data Protection Act (ICDPA) covers sensitive data including biometric identifiers but is a consumer-rights law enforced by the Iowa Attorney General with no private right of action. Iowa does not have a BIPA-style per-person statutory damages regime. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Iowa does not carry the same direct $1,000–$5,000 per-person exposure that exists in Illinois, but common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts still apply.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in Iowa?
The device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and your role in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator. Iowa law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent.
What happens if I record someone in Iowa who is in Illinois?
Illinois is an all-party consent state under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. When a call or conversation includes a participant located in Illinois, Illinois's stricter rule may govern the recording. Iowa's one-party consent does not insulate you from Illinois law if the other party is in Illinois. When a cross-border call involves any all-party-consent state, disclosing the recording is the safest approach.
Can I record police officers with smart glasses in Iowa?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter (a traffic stop, a public street interaction), Iowa's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording. Note that the Eighth Circuit (which covers Iowa) has not clearly established a standalone First Amendment right to record police in public, though Fourth Amendment protections in individual stops remain strong. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.
Does Iowa's 2026 handheld-device driving ban affect smart glasses?
Iowa's handheld ban effective January 1, 2026 targets handheld devices. Smart glasses are not handheld and are not explicitly covered. Navigation use is analogous to a mounted GPS. Live streaming or making video calls through smart glasses while driving raises distracted-driving concerns and is legally unsettled in Iowa as of June 2026.
Updates
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part expectation-of-privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurrence, where the opinion states it.
Corrected our description of Iowa's nudity invasion-of-privacy law to include its sexual-purpose element, clarified that the camera-while-trespassing law requires a trespass, and corrected the state and federal civil damages descriptions.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Rescoped Iowa Code § 727.8A: it is a general trespass-plus-camera statute with no intimate-area or nudity element, not a provision limited to recording intimate areas; corrected in the private-places section, the voyeurism section, and the FAQ.
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.
Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
§ 808B.2Unlawful acts — penalty.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who does any of the following commits a class “D” felony: a. Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication. b. Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when either of the following applies: (1) The device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication. (2) The device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of radio communications. c. Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of a 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 subsection. d.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts have applied 808B.2 to covert recordings by private parties. State v. Spencer (2007) read its one-party consent exception to include vicarious consent, but only where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for consenting for a minor child. Papillon v. Jones (2017) applied it to a hidden home recorder.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)✓A man left a hidden voice-activated recorder in his ex-girlfriend's home and captured her private phone calls, then used them in their custody case; the court affirmed liability under Section 808B.2 but held punitive damages require proof he knew he was violating the chapter.
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)✓A nonmember hid a recorder in a fraternity's private meeting room and gave the tape to university officials who used it to discipline the chapter; the court held the tape was a protected oral communication and read "willfully" in Section 808B.2 to mean purposeful conduct.
- State v. Spencer (Supreme Court of Iowa 2007, 737 N.W.2d 124)✓A father secretly taped his 13-year-old daughter's calls with her teacher after suspecting sexual abuse; the court read Section 808B.2(2)(c)'s consent exception to include vicarious consent, letting a parent consent for a minor on a good-faith, objectively reasonable basis.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Iowa Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Iowa Video Recording Laws: Where You Can and Cannot Film (2026)
§ 808B.8Civil damages authorized — civil and criminal immunity — injunctive relief.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall: a. Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications. b. Be entitled to recover from any such person all of the following: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages upon a finding of a willful, malicious, or reckless violation of this chapter. (3) A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 2. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter. 3. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter may seek an injunction, either temporary or permanent, against any person who violates this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)“…of an intercepted electronic communication in violation of Iowa Code section 808B.8 (2001). Because the fraternity is the r…”
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)“…ict court awarded Papillon attorney fees of $16,008. See Iowa Code § 808B.8(1)(b)(3) (allowing award of attorney f…”
- Marcus Darrell Eugene Luthi v. Client Neis, in his official and individual capacities, and Wapello County, Iowa (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2021)“…apillon v. Jones, 892 N.W.2d 763, 770 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Code § 808B.8). Iowa Code chapter 808B is “intended…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights, Iowa AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Iowa Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Iowa Code, Chapter 727: HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE
§ 727.8ACameras or electronic surveillance devices — trespass.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
A person committing a trespass as defined in section 716.7 who knowingly places or uses a camera or electronic surveillance device that transmits or records images or data while the device is on the trespassed property commits an aggravated misdemeanor for a first offense and a class “D” felony for a second or subsequent offense.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kimberly Reynolds (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2024, 89 F.4th 1071)“…or data while the device is on the trespassed property[.]” Iowa Code § 727.8A (“the Act”). Five animal-welfare groups…”
- Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement v. Kimberly Reynolds (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)“…animal-welfare groups sued several Iowa officials, alleging Iowa Code § 727.8A violates their members’ First Amendment…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Iowa Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Iowa Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Windshield Mounting, and Legal Limits (2026)
§ 727.8Electronic and mechanical eavesdropping.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
1. “Monitoring device” means a digital video or audio streaming or recording device that records, listens to, or otherwise intercepts video or audio communications in order to provide proof of or prevent criminal activity that is placed outside of a person’s dwelling or other structure that is not in a shared hallway and is on real property owned or leased by the person. 2. Any person, having no right or authority to do so, who taps into or connects a listening or recording device to any telephone or other communication wire, or who by any electronic or mechanical means listens to, records, or otherwise intercepts a conversation or communication of any kind, commits a serious misdemeanor. 3. This section does not apply to any of the following: a. The recording by a sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication from recording such message or communication. b. The use of any radio or television receiver to receive any communication transmitted by radio or wireless signal. c. The use of a monitoring device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Reid (1986) read the section's exception to let a sender, recipient, or person openly present and participating record a conversation without all-party consent or a court order. State v. Philpott (2005) affirmed a conviction for leaving a voice-activated recorder running in an office during the defendant's absence.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Philpott (Supreme Court of Iowa 2005, 702 N.W.2d 500)✓A court clerk left a voice-activated recorder running on her desk while at lunch, capturing coworkers; the court affirmed her section 727.8 conviction, holding a jury could find she intended to record conversations that took place during her absence.
- State v. Reid (Supreme Court of Iowa 1986, 394 N.W.2d 399)✓Police had a ten-year-old girl call the defendant and taped the call, then videotaped his station interview without telling him; the court held both recordings fell within section 727.8's exception for a participant, so no court order or all-party consent was needed.
- State v. Fox (Supreme Court of Iowa 1992, 493 N.W.2d 829)✓A deputy monitored a county jail inmate's outgoing phone call, and what she said led to a cell search that turned up marijuana; the court held the right or authority to monitor under section 727.8 comes from chapter 808B, whose law-enforcement exception covered him.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026), Iowa Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent for Calls (2026), Iowa School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026)
Iowa Code, Chapter 709: SEXUAL ABUSE
§ 709.21Invasion of privacy — nudity.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. A person who knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, commits invasion of privacy if all of the following apply: a. The other person does not consent or is unable to consent to being viewed, photographed, or filmed. b. The other person is in a state of full or partial nudity. c. The other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy while in a state of full or partial nudity. 2. As used in this section: a. “Full or partial nudity” means the showing of any part of the human genitals or pubic area or buttocks, or any part of the nipple of the breast of a female, with less than fully opaque covering. b. “Photographs or films” means the making of any photograph, motion picture film, videotape, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person. 3. A person who violates this section commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts apply section 709.21 element by element. State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Wade Marchant affirmed a conviction on circumstantial proof of hidden bedroom cameras; State of Iowa v. Paul Andrew Monahan reversed, finding no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at open public restroom urinals.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Iowa v. Paul Andrew Monahan (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2018, 919 N.W.2d 635)✓A man was convicted under section 709.21 for allegedly looking at teenage boys at urinals in a public restroom at a track meet; the court reversed, finding no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at those open urinals and insufficient evidence of a sexual purpose.
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Templeton (Supreme Court of Iowa 2010, 784 N.W.2d 761)✓A lawyer repeatedly peered into women's bedroom and bathroom windows and pleaded guilty to six counts of invasion of privacy under section 709.21; the court did not interpret the statute but held those convictions reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law.
- State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Wade Marchant (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2026)✓The mother's live-in partner hid a camera in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom, and over 1,000 nude images were found on his phones; the court held the circumstantial evidence sufficed to sustain his invasion-of-privacy conviction under section 709.21(1).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights (2026), Iowa Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Iowa Code 709.21 Penalties (2026), Iowa Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
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, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 63 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Security Camera Laws: BIPA, Audio Rules, and Placement (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Iowa Code § 808B.2: Unlawful acts and penalties. Establishes the general prohibition on intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications and the one-party consent exception at § 808B.2.2.c. Unlawful interception is a Class D felony.(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code § 808B.8: Civil damages authorized. Plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees for intentional or reckless violations.(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code § 709.21: Invasion of privacy (nudity). Criminalizes photographing or recording a person in a state of full or partial nudity in a location with a reasonable expectation of privacy from such observation. Aggravated misdemeanor; mandatory sex-offender registration.(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code § 727.8A: Camera-while-trespassing. Prohibits knowingly placing or using a camera or electronic surveillance device that transmits or records images or data while committing a trespass, with no intimate-area or nudity element. First offense: aggravated misdemeanor. Subsequent offense: Class D felony.(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code § 727.8: Serious misdemeanor surveillance provisions. Up to 1 year imprisonment and $430–$2,560 fine for lesser unlawful-observation offenses.(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability of at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2): Definition of 'oral communication' as an aural transfer under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801: Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine, stop recording if asked, and comply with applicable law.(meta.com)
- Iowa Code § 709.21, Invasion of privacy, nudity(legis.iowa.gov)
- Iowa Code § 727.8A, Cameras or electronic surveillance devices, trespass(legis.iowa.gov)
- Iowa Code § 808B.8, Civil damages authorized(legis.iowa.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520, Recovery of civil damages authorized(law.cornell.edu)