Michigan
Michigan 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 Michigan, but whether you can legally record with them depends on a critical distinction: who is doing the recording and what is being captured. For audio of private conversations, Michigan's eavesdropping statute is written as all-party consent, but a 1982 Court of Appeals decision means participants in a conversation may record it themselves. A non-participant who secretly captures someone else's private discussion needs consent from all parties.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Michigan?
Yes. Michigan has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under Michigan or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video, and it depends entirely on the content recorded, the location, and your role in any conversation being captured.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space (a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, or other location generally accessible to the public) is lawful in Michigan under both state and federal law. When a person is in public, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception; silent video in public does not trigger it. Michigan law tracks this same principle.
This means smart glasses worn on a public sidewalk, at an outdoor event, or in a public building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The calculus shifts in semi-public or 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 (such as a restaurant booth during a private conversation or a workplace break room) can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.
In his concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan described a twofold requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy: a person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Michigan courts apply this same framework to evaluate whether a location or conversation is "private" within the meaning of the eavesdropping statute.
Recording inside private places
MCL 750.539d prohibits installing or using a device to observe, record, transmit, photograph, or eavesdrop upon persons in a private place without their consent. A first offense is a felony carrying up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. A subsequent offense carries up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside their home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private place falls squarely within this statute.
Recording Audio and Michigan's Eavesdropping Law: The Participant Exception
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Michigan, and it requires careful explanation.
The statute: all-party on its face
Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, makes it a felony for any person, whether present or not present during a private conversation, to wilfully use "any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto." Read literally, that language appears to require the consent of every participant: a classic all-party consent rule.
The key definition is in MCL 750.539a: "eavesdrop" means "to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse." The phrase "private discourse of others" is the phrase that has driven litigation.
Sullivan v. Gray: the participant exception
In Sullivan v. Gray, the Michigan Court of Appeals interpreted "the private discourse of others" to mean discourse by persons other than the recorder. In other words, a person who is a party to the conversation cannot be eavesdropping on "the discourse of others," because they are part of the discourse themselves. The court held that Michigan's statute does not prohibit a participant from recording a conversation to which they are a party.
This participant exception has remained controlling Michigan precedent since 1982. In practical terms, it produces an outcome similar to a one-party consent state for participants: if you are part of the conversation (a direct participant exchanging words with the other person), you may record that conversation without notifying or obtaining consent from the others.
What the participant exception does NOT cover
The exception is narrow and should not be stretched. It applies only to a genuine participant: someone actively engaged in the exchange of words. It does not protect:
- A person who holds smart glasses up to record a conversation happening between two other people nearby who are not speaking to the recorder.
- An employee sent by a third party to capture a conversation in a room where the recorder is not meaningfully participating.
- Recording the "private discourse of others" in any context where the recorder is not a true participant.
A non-participant who secretly captures someone else's private conversation faces a felony charge under MCL 750.539c: up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine.
Practical application for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Michigan, the participant exception means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone (in a coffee shop, at work, or at a social gathering) is lawful under Michigan law. You are a participant. You do not need to disclose the recording.
- Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of is illegal. The statute's all-party requirement applies fully to non-participants.
- Recording your own video content in public without engaging in any private discourse raises no eavesdropping issue at all.
This nuance makes Michigan legally distinct from both pure one-party states (where any participant can record any conversation they are part of) and pure all-party states (where even participants must obtain consent). Michigan is effectively one-party for participants and all-party for eavesdroppers; the line between the two requires honest self-assessment about your role in a given exchange.
For more on Michigan's consent framework, see the Michigan Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance
Regardless of the conversation-consent rules above, Michigan law separately prohibits capturing images of a person's undergarments or unclad intimate areas where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
MCL 750.539j prohibits:
- Surveilling another person who is clad only in undergarments, or the unclad genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts of another person, in circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Photographing or otherwise capturing or recording the visual image of another person's undergarments, or their unclad genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts, under circumstances where they reasonably expect privacy.
- Distributing, disseminating, or transmitting recordings obtained in violation of these prohibitions.
Penalties under MCL 750.539j are serious. A first offense for surveillance is a felony carrying up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. For the recording, photography, and distribution offenses, the penalty is a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. A second surveillance offense also escalates to 5 years and a $5,000 fine.
The locations where this law applies most clearly include restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. The covert appearance of smart glasses (they look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders) does not create any exception. The hidden nature of the recording is in fact a factor that can aggravate the offense.
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.
The rule is absolute: no location in Michigan, and no consent from any third party, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect privacy from visual observation.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Michigan 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).
Under Michigan state law alone, using a smart glasses facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not trigger a standalone biometric statute the way it would in Illinois (where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent) or Texas (where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent).
Michigan residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. The federal Wiretap Act, common-law privacy torts, and the general principles of intrusion upon seclusion still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether any state biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself creates that liability without requiring publication of the footage.
The biometric risk is most acute 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 facial recognition application to identify strangers. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse 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. Michigan users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the information is used for harassment or stalking, criminal exposure under Michigan's cyberstalking and surveillance statutes.
Penalties Summary
Most of Michigan's eavesdropping and surveillance violations are felonies. One exception: trespassing on another person's property to subject that person to eavesdropping or surveillance is a misdemeanor under MCL 750.539b.
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping on private conversation (non-participant) | MCL 750.539c | 2 years / $2,000 fine |
| Installing/using device in private place (1st offense) | MCL 750.539d | 2 years / $2,000 fine |
| Installing/using device in private place (subsequent) | MCL 750.539d | 5 years / $5,000 fine |
| Distributing unlawfully obtained recordings | MCL 750.539d | 5 years / $5,000 fine |
| Voyeurism surveillance (1st offense) | MCL 750.539j | 2 years / $2,000 fine |
| Voyeurism recording or distribution | MCL 750.539j | 5 years / $5,000 fine |
Beyond criminal penalties, MCL 750.539h gives the parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced unlawfully a civil cause of action. A civil plaintiff may obtain an injunction prohibiting further eavesdropping and recover actual damages and punitive damages. The statute does not provide for attorney fees. The civil remedy exists independently of any criminal prosecution.
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages for unlawful interception.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Michigan
Understand your role before you record audio. The participant exception in Michigan is narrow. If you are actively engaged in the conversation (the other person is speaking to you and you to them), you are a participant and may record. If you are holding the glasses to capture a conversation happening near you that does not involve you, you are a non-participant eavesdropper and the all-party consent requirement applies.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Michigan law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the one visible signal that recording is occurring, which directly strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent if a dispute arises.
Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though the participant exception technically permits undisclosed recording of conversations you are part of, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal meeting (an employment interview, business negotiation, or medical appointment) eliminates any ambiguity about consent and avoids the civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.
Never record in private spaces. MCL 750.539d bars recording in a private place without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there, and MCL 750.539j bars capturing intimate images where a person reasonably expects privacy. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or other spaces where people have a clear expectation of privacy from observation.
Facial recognition adds risk. Michigan has no biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software exposes you to common-law tort liability and potentially to the laws of states where the identified person resides (especially Illinois, Texas, or Washington residents).
Driving caution. Michigan's distracted-driving laws focus on handheld electronic device use. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Michigan statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device distraction, and remains legally unsettled.
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Michigan a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Michigan is technically all-party consent under the plain text of MCL 750.539c, but the Michigan Court of Appeals held in Sullivan v. Gray (1982) that a participant in a conversation may record it without the other parties' knowledge. In practice, Michigan is effectively one-party consent for participants and all-party consent for non-participants who are not part of the conversation.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Michigan without telling the other person?
If you are a genuine participant in the conversation (meaning the other person is speaking with you), yes, the participant exception from Sullivan v. Gray permits you to record without disclosure. If you are not a participant and are capturing someone else's private discussion, you need consent from all parties under MCL 750.539c.
What is Sullivan v. Gray and why does it matter for Michigan?
Sullivan v. Gray is a 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals decision that interpreted the phrase 'private discourse of others' in MCL 750.539a to exclude conversations that the recorder is a party to. The court held that a participant cannot be eavesdropping on the discourse of others because they are in the conversation themselves. This creates the participant exception that distinguishes Michigan from states with a pure all-party consent rule.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Michigan?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and private residences, recording without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there is a felony under MCL 750.539d, and capturing images of a person's undergarments or unclad intimate areas is a felony under MCL 750.539j. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to these prohibitions.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in Michigan?
Most of Michigan's recording and surveillance violations in the 750.539 series are felonies; trespassing to subject someone to eavesdropping or surveillance (MCL 750.539b) is a misdemeanor. Eavesdropping on a private conversation (MCL 750.539c) carries up to 2 years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. Voyeurism recording or distribution (MCL 750.539j) carries up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine. For parties to an unlawfully eavesdropped conversation, civil remedies under MCL 750.539h add potential liability for an injunction, actual damages, and punitive damages, but the statute does not authorize attorney fees.
Does Michigan have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
No. Michigan has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Michigan does not trigger a state biometric statute, though common-law privacy torts (intrusion upon seclusion) still apply, and you may face liability under the laws of the state where an identified person resides.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Michigan?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator, but Michigan law does not mandate its use, and deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert recording intent.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in Michigan?
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 or a street interaction), the Sullivan v. Gray participant exception would also permit audio recording. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity during any recording.
Updates
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part expectation-of-privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, where it appears.
Corrected the quoted text of Michigan's eavesdropping statute, noted that trespassing to eavesdrop is a misdemeanor, narrowed the civil-remedy and voyeurism descriptions to match the statutes, and fixed the voyeurism penalty summary.
Corrected the description of Michigan's civil eavesdropping remedy under MCL 750.539h: it authorizes an injunction, actual damages, and punitive damages, but does not provide for attorney fees as the page previously stated.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 44 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 32 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. LeGrow held a bedroom in a private home is a "private place" under MCL 750.539d and that consenting to sex does not consent to being secretly videotaped there, sustaining civil awards. People v. Wilkens affirmed convictions including one under the section for a camera hidden in a shower used by tenants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)✓A man hid a video camera in his own bedroom and taped three women having sex with him; the court held the bedroom was a private place under 539d and that consenting to sex did not mean consenting to be taped, so the jury verdicts against him stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)“…ne count of eavesdropping through installation of a camera, MCL 750.539d. [1] The trial court sentenced defenda…”
- People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)“…drug house, MCL 333.7405(l)(d); one count of eavesdropping, MCL 750.539d; and four counts of engaging the servic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts have applied MCL 750.539j to hidden cameras. In People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Thomas Mazur (2015) the Court of Appeals held the statute does not require that a defendant view the recorded material, and that its residential security-monitoring exception does not cover a camera used for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…e, was arrested for felony surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j(1)(a). The trial court authori…”
- In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…520g(2), and two counts of surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j. Respondent was arraigned on the crimin…”
- People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)“…ither naked or clad in undergarments, MCL 28.722(r)(vi) and MCL 750.539j. These offenses all involve a sexual c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513)“…MSA 4.1801(10)(7), MCL 600.2911(2)(b); MSA 27A.2911(2)(b), MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c). In additio…”
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…violation); MCL 600.2911; MSA 27A.2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…this act, the court or jury who shall try the same); and MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 32 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)“…such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony.... MCL 750.539a provides the definitions of phrases use…”
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In…”
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)“…e Commander Turner, in answering the mobile phone, violated MCL 750.539a et seq.; MSA 28.807(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539bTrespassing for purpose of eavesdropping or surveillanceIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
A person who trespasses on property owned or under the control of any other person, to subject that person to eavesdropping or surveillance is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 20250212_C366399_43_366399.Opn.Pdf (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…does not require the exclusion of that evidence. See 4 MCL 750.539b concerns trespassing on property owned…”
- Keith Edward Gardiner v. Sian Hengeveld (Michigan Court of Appeals 2023)“…ore than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00.” MCL 750.539b addresses trespassing on property owned…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 750.539a: Definitions. 'eavesdrop' defined as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting 'any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.' Source of the 'others' language that underlies Sullivan v. Gray.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539c: Eavesdropping upon private conversations. Prohibits using any device to record the private discourse of others without all-party consent. Felony: up to 2 years imprisonment and $2,000 fine.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539d: Installing or using a device in a private place. Prohibits recording or surveilling persons in private places without consent. First offense: up to 2 years/$2,000. Subsequent: up to 5 years/$5,000.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539h: Civil remedies for violations of MCL 750.539a through 750.539j. Authorizes an injunction prohibiting further eavesdropping, actual damages, and punitive damages. The statute does not provide for attorney fees.(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539j: Voyeurism and unlawful surveillance. Prohibits recording partially or fully unclad persons, recording intimate areas, and distributing such recordings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Up to 5 years/$5,000 fine for recording and distribution offenses.(legislature.mi.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 violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2): Definition of 'oral communication' as an aural transfer containing the human voice 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.(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 stop recording if asked, and Meta's instruction to obey applicable law.(meta.com)
- MCL 750.539b: Trespassing on property to subject a person to eavesdropping or surveillance is a misdemeanor.(legislature.mi.gov)