Kansas
Kansas Smart Glasses Recording Laws (K.S.A. 21-6101)
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 Kansas. You can record video in public spaces without restriction. When your glasses also capture audio, Kansas law steps in: K.S.A. 21-6101 is a one-party consent statute, meaning you can record any conversation you are part of without telling the other participants. Kansas also separately criminalizes recording someone under their clothing or in the nude without consent, a provision that applies equally to smart glasses. Knowing exactly where each rule applies keeps you on the right side of Kansas law before you press record.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Kansas?
Yes. Smart glasses are consumer electronics. Kansas has no law restricting the ownership, possession, or wearing of smart glasses, augmented reality eyewear, or similar wearable technology. Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses and comparable devices are sold and used throughout the state without restriction.
The legal complexity arises entirely from what you record with your glasses, not from wearing them. Two layers of state law govern that conduct: the audio consent rule under K.S.A. 21-6101 for capturing spoken conversations, and the same statute's separate prohibition on recording persons under clothing or in private states of undress without their knowledge or consent.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Video-only recording in a public space is generally lawful in Kansas. When you walk down a street, enter a retail store, or attend an outdoor event, the people around you have a reduced expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed. This principle traces to the federal constitutional framework established in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which holds that a reasonable expectation of privacy must be both subjectively held and objectively recognized by society. In open public spaces, neither prong is typically satisfied for mere visual observation.
Smart glasses used to capture video footage of public streets, parks, events, or retail spaces do not violate Kansas law simply by recording what is visible to anyone present.
The analysis shifts when recording moves into private or semi-private spaces. A private home, medical office, hotel room, or even a secluded corner of a restaurant can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy that covert video recording may violate. The controlling question is not whether a space is technically accessible to the public but whether persons within it hold a reasonable expectation that their activities are not being captured by an unseen recording device.
Kansas does not have a broad statute restricting video recording in private spaces, but two independent constraints apply: the prohibition on recording persons in states of undress without consent (discussed below) and civil tort liability for intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B.
Recording Audio: Kansas One-Party Consent Rule
Kansas is a one-party consent state for audio recording. The governing statute is K.S.A. 21-6101, which defines "breach of privacy" and lists eight categories of prohibited conduct. The wiretapping and eavesdropping provisions at K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5) prohibit intercepting communications "without the consent of the sender or receiver," installing devices to overhear conversations, and using electronic means to capture wire or wireless communications.
Under the one-party consent framework, you are a "party" to any conversation you personally participate in. Your participation counts as consent. You may therefore record that conversation with your smart glasses without disclosing the recording to, or obtaining agreement from, the other participants.
This means a Kansas resident wearing Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses during a phone call, an in-person business meeting, or a casual conversation can lawfully capture the audio of that exchange. The other participants do not need to be told. No announcement is legally required. The Kansas rule mirrors the federal one-party consent baseline at (2)(d), so there is no conflict between state and federal law for Kansas residents recording their own conversations.
When One-Party Consent Does Not Apply
The one-party consent rule does not give smart glasses wearers a license to record conversations they are not part of. If you use your glasses to capture the private conversation of two or more other people who do not know you are recording and in which you are not a participant, you are intercepting a communication without any party's consent. That conduct falls squarely within K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5) and is a Class A nonperson misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,500 under K.S.A. 21-6602 and 21-6611.
The covert nature of smart glasses is directly relevant here. Glasses look like ordinary eyewear. A person standing several feet away from a private conversation can capture every word without any of the participants realizing a recording device is present. That covert capacity is exactly what the eavesdropping provisions target when the recorder is not a participant in the exchange.
What Counts as a Private Conversation
The eavesdropping provisions of K.S.A. 21-6101 reach communications in which participants have a reasonable expectation that their words are not being overheard. A loud exchange on a crowded public street is not the kind of private communication the statute protects. A quiet discussion between two business partners in a conference room, a conversation between family members in a home, a counseling session, or a medical appointment are all contexts where participants would reasonably expect their spoken words are not being captured by a nearby wearable device.
Smart glasses worn in ordinary social, professional, or domestic settings create exactly the kind of covert-interception risk the statute targets when the wearer is not a participant. Participating in the conversation changes the legal picture entirely: as a party, your own consent covers the recording.
Where You Cannot Record: The Clothing and Nudity Prohibition
K.S.A. 21-6101 contains a recording-specific prohibition that goes beyond the audio wiretapping framework. Subsection (a)(6) makes it a crime to knowingly, without lawful authority, use "a camcorder, motion picture camera or photographic camera of any type to videotape, film, photograph or record, by electronic or other means" another identifiable person under or through the clothing they are wearing, or while that person is nude or in a state of undress, without that person's consent or knowledge, with the intent to invade their privacy, and under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Smart glasses qualify as a "photographic camera of any type" under this language. A person wearing smart glasses and using the glasses to record under another person's clothing, or to capture images of someone in a state of undress under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, violates K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6). This is not a misdemeanor: it is a severity level 8 felony. A second conviction within five years escalates to a severity level 5 felony.
Distributing or disseminating any video, photograph, film, or image obtained through such unlawful photography is a separate and more serious offense under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(7), punishable as a severity level 5 felony.
The statute also prohibits distributing intimate images of another identifiable adult who is nude or engaged in sexual activity without that person's consent and with intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate. K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) expressly covers images "created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence," making it applicable to AI-manipulated footage as well. This offense is also a severity level 8 felony.
Locations Where Recording Is Categorically Prohibited
These prohibitions point to a clear set of locations where smart glasses recording is never permissible regardless of the one-party consent rule for audio:
- Restrooms and bathrooms in any venue
- Locker rooms, gym changing areas, and shower facilities
- Retail fitting rooms and dressing rooms
- Private residences where the occupant has not consented
- Hotel and motel rooms
- Medical examination rooms and clinical settings
In these spaces, persons have an unambiguous reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body and intimate conduct. The one-party consent rule is an audio concept. It does not authorize recording a person's body without their knowledge in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of bodily privacy. Kansas law treats that conduct as a felony, and the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act at separately prohibits such recording on federal property.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Data in Kansas
As of June 2026, Kansas has not enacted a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14), Texas CUBI (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001), or Washington RCW Chapter 19.375. Kansas has no law requiring notice or consent before collecting face geometry, voiceprints, or other biometric identifiers.
Smart glasses wearers in Kansas who use third-party facial recognition applications to identify strangers are not subject to Kansas-specific statutory biometric liability. However, several other legal constraints remain relevant and meaningful.
Civil liability under the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, grounded in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, can apply whenever a person intentionally intrudes upon the seclusion of another in a manner that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Using a facial recognition application attached to smart glasses to covertly identify strangers, retrieve their personal information, and track their movements without their knowledge could satisfy both elements of the tort: intentional intrusion and objective offensiveness. Kansas courts recognize the privacy torts as a matter of common law.
The 2024 I-XRAY demonstration, in which Harvard students paired Meta Ray-Ban glasses with third-party facial recognition software to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses, illustrated exactly the kind of conduct that intrusion-upon-seclusion doctrine can reach even without a dedicated biometric statute. The technology worked. Kansas residents have no statutory floor below which such conduct is automatically lawful, but they also have no statutory ceiling above which it is categorically prohibited.
Residents and visitors should also be aware that traveling with smart glasses to states with biometric privacy laws changes the legal exposure. Illinois BIPA allows private lawsuits with statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person per violation. Texas CUBI authorizes civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation by the Texas Attorney General. Washington RCW 19.375 prohibits commercial enrollment in a database without notice and consent. If smart glasses are used to capture face geometry in those states, those states' laws apply based on where the data collection occurs, not where the glasses owner lives.
Criminal Penalties Under K.S.A. 21-6101
The penalty structure under K.S.A. 21-6101 reflects the graduated severity of the different prohibited acts.
Unauthorized interception of communications (subsections a(1) through a(5)): These wiretapping and eavesdropping provisions are Class A nonperson misdemeanors under K.S.A. 21-6101(b). A Class A nonperson misdemeanor in Kansas carries a definite term of confinement in county jail not to exceed one year, per K.S.A. 21-6602, and a fine of up to $2,500, per K.S.A. 21-6611.
Unlawful photography under clothing or while nude (subsection a(6)): This is a severity level 8 felony. A second conviction within five years for this specific offense is punishable as a severity level 5 felony, per K.S.A. 21-6101(b).
Distributing recordings obtained by unlawful photography (subsection a(7)): Disseminating or permitting the dissemination of footage obtained through a violation of subsection (a)(6) is a severity level 5 felony.
Nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (subsection a(8)): Distributing intimate images without consent and with intent to harass or intimidate, including AI-altered images, is a severity level 8 felony with the same escalation to level 5 on a second conviction within five years.
Beyond criminal liability, a person who makes an unauthorized recording may face civil claims. Intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B imposes liability for the act of covert recording itself, even if the footage is never shared or published. If the recording is subsequently published or distributed, public disclosure of private facts under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D provides an additional theory of recovery.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Kansas
Participating in a conversation is all the consent you need. Kansas one-party consent means your own participation in any conversation authorizes the audio recording of that conversation. You do not need to announce that you are recording, and the other party's agreement is not required.
Do not record conversations you are not part of. The one-party rule does not cover third-party interception. Using your glasses to record a private exchange between people who do not include you exposes you to Class A misdemeanor charges under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5).
Never record under clothing or in private spaces of undress. K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) is a felony provision. The fact that smart glasses look like ordinary eyewear does not create a legal exception. Recording a person's intimate areas without their consent in any location where they have a reasonable expectation of bodily privacy is a severity level 8 felony.
Let the capture LED be visible. Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a white LED indicator near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording. Meta's official guidance instructs users to let the LED shine rather than cover or obscure it. The visible LED provides notice to persons nearby that recording is occurring, which supports the argument that your use of the device is transparent rather than covert.
Do not distribute recordings obtained through unlawful photography. If footage was captured in violation of K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6), distributing that footage is a separate and more serious felony under subsection (a)(7). Deleting the footage and not sharing it is the only way to avoid that additional exposure.
Recording police and public officials in public is lawful. Because you are a participant in your own interaction with a police officer during a traffic stop or an encounter with a government official in their official capacity, your one-party consent covers the recording. Kansas does not have a separate police recording statute restricting this activity in public.
Be cautious with facial recognition applications. Kansas has no biometric statute, but civil tort liability is real, and traveling to Illinois, Texas, or Washington with facial-recognition-enabled smart glasses creates statutory exposure in those states. Using facial recognition to identify strangers and retrieve personal information is also the kind of conduct that supports an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim in Kansas courts.
More Kansas Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record someone with smart glasses in Kansas?
It depends on what you are recording and your role in the interaction. For video in public spaces, recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being seen. For audio recording of a private conversation you are part of, Kansas one-party consent under K.S.A. 21-6101 makes the recording lawful without any announcement. Recording a private conversation you are not a part of is a Class A misdemeanor. Recording another person under their clothing or while nude without consent is a severity level 8 felony.
Do I need to tell someone I am recording with smart glasses in Kansas?
No. Kansas is a one-party consent state under K.S.A. 21-6101. If you are a participant in the conversation, your own participation counts as consent. You do not need to announce the recording, and the other party does not need to agree. This applies to both in-person and telephone conversations you are personally part of.
What if I record a conversation I am not part of in Kansas?
Intercepting a private conversation without any participating party's consent violates K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5). This is a Class A nonperson misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,500. The covert form factor of smart glasses does not create an exception. Using glasses to capture a private exchange between others who do not know you are recording is exactly the conduct the eavesdropping provisions target.
What makes the photography provision in Kansas law different from the audio rule?
The audio eavesdropping rule under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5) is a Class A misdemeanor when violated. The photography provision at K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) is a felony. Recording another person under or through their clothing, or while nude, without consent and with intent to invade privacy is a severity level 8 felony. Distributing such footage under subsection (a)(7) is a severity level 5 felony. These are entirely separate and more serious consequences.
Can I record police with smart glasses in Kansas?
Yes. When you are present during a police encounter, you are a participant in the interaction. Kansas one-party consent means your participation authorizes the recording. You do not need to announce that your glasses are recording a traffic stop, a public enforcement action, or another interaction with a government official performing official duties. Recording police in public is protected activity.
Are there places where I can never record with smart glasses in Kansas?
Yes. K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) prohibits recording any identifiable person under their clothing or while nude without their consent, regardless of location. In practice this bars smart glasses recording in restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. The one-party consent rule applies to audio of conversations. It does not authorize recording another person's body without consent in spaces where they have a reasonable expectation of bodily privacy.
Does Kansas have a biometric privacy law covering facial recognition on smart glasses?
No. As of June 2026, Kansas has not enacted a dedicated biometric privacy statute. Smart glasses used with facial recognition software in Kansas are not subject to Kansas-specific statutory biometric liability. However, civil tort claims for intrusion upon seclusion can apply, and if the glasses are used to capture face geometry in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, those states' biometric laws apply based on where the data collection occurs.
Can I wear smart glasses while driving in Kansas?
Kansas has a distracted driving statute that prohibits electronic device use that interferes with safe operation of a vehicle. Using smart glasses for navigation is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device, which is generally permissible. Using glasses to stream video, monitor social media, or engage in non-driving activities while operating a vehicle creates substantially greater legal and safety risk. Kansas law does not specifically address wearable display glasses as of June 2026, so the general distracted driving standard applies.
Updates
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.
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 21: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 21-6101Breach of privacy.In forcecited in 26 of our articles
(a) Breach of privacy is knowingly and without lawful authority: (1) Intercepting, without the consent of the sender or receiver, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication; (2) divulging, without the consent of the sender or receiver, the existence or contents of such message if such person knows that the message was illegally intercepted, or if such person illegally learned of the message in the course of employment with an agency in transmitting such message; (3) entering with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations in a private place or to observe the personal conduct of any other person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (4) installing or using outside or inside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in such place, which sounds would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible without the use of such device, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein; (5) installing or using any device or equipment for the interception of any telephone, telegraph or other wire or wireless communication without the consent of the person in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 8 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Recent Kansas decisions construe the image-dissemination subsection, K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8), not the interception subsections. State v. Ivy (2025) held a reasonable expectation of privacy under that subsection has a subjective and an objective component. State v. Jamil (2026), unpublished, found disseminating needs no jury definition.
Leading cases:
- State v. Ivy (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)✓Ivy posted on Snapchat a sexual video his ex-girlfriend had recorded and texted him during their relationship; the court applied a subjective and objective two-part test and held a jury could find she kept a reasonable expectation of privacy, affirming the conviction.
- In re Belcher (Supreme Court of Kansas 2024, 552 P.3d 1213)“…deotape, photograph, film or image obtained in violation of K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6) or (a)(8), and amendments…”
- State v. Jamil (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)✓Jamil secretly filmed a woman undressed and unconscious at his home, then sent the videos to her boyfriend; the court held that sharing with a single recipient can be disseminating under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) and that intent to harass could be inferred from his conduct.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Audio Recording Laws, Kansas Phone Call Recording Laws, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 21-6602Classification of misdemeanors and terms of confinement; possible disposition.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) For the purpose of sentencing, the following classes of misdemeanors and the punishment and the terms of confinement authorized for each class are established: (1) Class A, the sentence for which shall be a definite term of confinement in the county jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed one year; (2) class B, the sentence for which shall be a definite term of confinement in the county jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed six months; (3) class C, the sentence for which shall be a definite term of confinement in the county jail which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed one month; and (4) unclassified misdemeanors, which shall include all crimes declared to be misdemeanors without specification as to class, the sentence for which shall be in accordance with the sentence specified in the statute that defines the crime; if no penalty is provided in such law, the sentence shall be the same penalty as provided herein for a class C misdemeanor. (b) Upon conviction of a misdemeanor, a person may be punished by a fine, as provided in K.S.A.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 13 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- State v. Stover (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)“…endant to serve up to one year in jail for each conviction. K.S.A. 21-6602(a)(1). Additionally, the district court…”
- State v. Vallette (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)“…s, all of Vallette's convictions were class B misdemeanors. K.S.A. 21-6602(a)(2) provides that a jail sentence for…”
- State v. Sobek (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)“…ion of K.S.A. 8-1567(a)(2)-(3), K.S.A. 8-1567(b)(1)(B), and K.S.A. 21-6602(a)(1). In addition, the State charged S…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kansas Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Kansas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 21-6611Fines; crimes committed on or after July 1, 1993.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony may, in addition to the sentence authorized by law, be ordered to pay a fine which shall be fixed by the court as follows: (1) For any off-grid felony crime, or any felony ranked in severity level 1 of the drug grid committed prior to July 1, 2012, or in severity levels 1 or 2 of the drug grid committed on or after July 1, 2012, as provided in K.S.A. 21-6805, and amendments thereto, a sum not exceeding $500,000; (2) for any felony ranked in severity levels 1 through 5 of the nondrug grid as provided in K.S.A. 21-6804, and amendments thereto, or in severity levels 2 or 3 of the drug grid committed prior to July 1, 2012, or in severity levels 3 or 4 of the drug grid committed on or after July 1, 2012, as provided in K.S.A. 21-6805, and amendments thereto, a sum not exceeding $300,000; and (3) for any felony ranked in severity levels 6 through 10 of the nondrug grid as provided in K.S.A. 21-6804, and amendments thereto, or in severity level 4 of the drug grid committed prior to July 1, 2012, or in severity level 5 of the drug grid committed on or after July 1, 2012, as provided in K.S.A.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Cited in 6 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- Heinzman v. State (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)“…olation when, in fact, the maximum amount was $300,000. See K.S.A. 21-6611(a)(2). She also…”
- State v. Abell (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2026)“…hose two cases for the appropriate fines in compliance with K.S.A. 21-6611(a)(3), and for the district court to de…”
- State v. Washington (Court of Appeals of Kansas 2025)“…nclude fines, in addition to or instead of jail time, under K.S.A. 21-6611. Washington's argument misappl…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Leading cases:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Leading cases:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- K.S.A. 21-6101, Breach of privacy. One-party consent: consent of sender or receiver (a party to the communication) satisfies (a)(1). Subsections (a)(1)-(a)(5): wiretapping/eavesdropping, Class A nonperson misdemeanor. Subsection (a)(6): installing or using a camcorder, motion picture camera or photographic camera of any type to record another identifiable person under clothing or while nude without consent, under circumstances of reasonable expectation of privacy, severity level 8 felony (level 5 on second conviction within 5 years). Subsection (a)(7): distributing unlawfully obtained recordings, severity level 5 felony. Subsection (a)(8): nonconsensual intimate image distribution including AI-altered images, severity level 8 felony (level 5 on second conviction within 5 years).(kslegislature.gov)
- K.S.A. 21-6602, Misdemeanor sentencing. Class A misdemeanor: maximum one year confinement in county jail.(kslegislature.gov)
- K.S.A. 21-6611, Fine amounts for crimes. Class A misdemeanor: fine not to exceed $2,500. Nondrug grid levels 6-10: fine not to exceed $100,000.(kslegislature.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511, Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). Federal baseline: more restrictive state laws override. Penalty: up to 5 years imprisonment and civil liability of at least $10,000.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510, Definitions under the federal Wiretap Act. Section 2510(2) defines 'oral communication'; § 2510(18) defines 'aural transfer.' These definitions establish that video-only recording without audio capture does not constitute a federal wiretap.(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 a reasonable expectation of privacy exists.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system, Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine, and Meta's instruction to stop recording if asked. Source for device-fact claims only.(meta.com)
- Meta help article: Notification LED on AI glasses. Official source for LED location (near right frame), white color when recording, and brightness adjustment settings.(meta.com)