Minnesota
Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025
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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Minnesota, and the state's one-party consent rule means you can record audio of any conversation you are participating in without notifying the other party. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful. The legal lines are drawn at covert recording in private spaces and at capturing intimate images without consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Minnesota?
Yes. Minnesota 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 Minnesota or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. At that point, the relevant questions are: What is being captured? Where is the recording taking place? Are you a participant in any conversation being recorded?
Smart glasses capture both video and audio simultaneously, which is what makes them legally complex. Video and audio recording are governed by separate legal frameworks. Video in a public space is generally lawful. Audio capture of a spoken conversation triggers Minnesota's Privacy of Communications Act and federal wiretap law. Understanding both is essential before using smart glasses to record.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Minnesota under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, a park, a retail store, or a government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.
The federal Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as an aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy against interception. Minnesota's parallel definition in Minn. Stat. 626A.01 tracks this same language: an "oral communication" is one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." Silent video capture in a public space does not satisfy either definition. The recording statutes address the interception of spoken communications, not video observation in public.
This means smart glasses worn while walking on a Minneapolis sidewalk, at the State Fair, at a sporting event at US Bank Stadium, or in a public government building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis shifts in semi-public or private spaces. A private home, a hotel room, a medical examination room, or a closed-door meeting space carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation or a workplace conference room, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of words spoken there.
In his concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan described a twofold requirement: that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Minnesota courts apply this framework when determining whether a space or conversation is "private" for purposes of the interference-with-privacy statutes.
Recording inside private places
Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside a private location, such as a home or a hotel room, can violate Minn. Stat. 609.746 (interference with privacy), but each of its prohibitions has specific elements. The dwelling provisions require entering another person's property and peeping or recording through a window or other opening of the home with intent to intrude on a household member's privacy. The hotel-room provisions cover peeping or recording through a window or other opening of a hotel sleeping room, a tanning booth, or another place where a reasonable person would expect privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose intimate parts, with intent to intrude on the occupant's privacy. The broadest provision reaches recording inside a home, hotel room, bathroom, locker room, or similar private place, but only when done with intent to capture the person's intimate parts without consent. Covert recording that meets those elements is treated as a serious criminal matter under Minnesota law, not a technical compliance issue.
Recording Audio and Minnesota's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the central legal issue for smart glasses users in Minnesota, and Minnesota law is clear and relatively protective of participant recording.
The statute
Minnesota's Privacy of Communications Act is codified at Minn. Stat. Chapter 626A. The core prohibition is at Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subdivision 1, which makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication.
The one-party consent exception is at Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subdivision 2(d):
It is not unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.
This is the operative provision for smart glasses users. If you are a participant in the conversation you are recording, the recording is lawful under Minnesota law. The other party's consent is not required, and you have no disclosure obligation.
What one-party consent means for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Minnesota, the one-party rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a coffee shop, in a business meeting, during a personal exchange, or at a job interview is lawful. You are a participant. Minnesota law does not require you to disclose the recording to the other party.
- Recording your own interactions with police officers in a public encounter is lawful under the same principle. You are a party to the exchange.
- Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party. Secretly capturing someone else's discussion when you are not participating violates Minn. Stat. 626A.02.
The term "oral communication" in Minnesota law carries a built-in qualifier: it applies only to communications in which the speaker "exhibits an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." A loud conversation on a crowded downtown Minneapolis street likely does not meet this threshold. A quiet conversation in a private room plainly does. Smart glasses wearers in semi-public spaces should analyze whether the conversation has the character of a private communication before relying on the one-party rule.
Federal alignment
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)) provides the same one-party consent baseline that Minnesota mirrors. Minnesota's rule is at least as permissive as the federal minimum, so there is no conflict between state and federal law for a Minnesota participant recording their own conversations. A participant recording their own conversations is lawful under both frameworks.
For a full analysis of Minnesota's consent framework, see the Minnesota Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Surreptitious Observation and Privacy Violations
Regardless of the consent rules, Minnesota law prohibits surreptitious observation and recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, subject to the specific elements and exceptions of Minn. Stat. 609.746 described below. The one-party consent rule does not override these prohibitions.
Minn. Stat. 609.746: Interference with privacy
Minn. Stat. 609.746 is Minnesota's primary statute governing surreptitious observation and recording. It covers several distinct categories of prohibited conduct:
Dwelling observation. A person commits a gross misdemeanor by entering upon another's property and surreptitiously gazing, staring, or peeping in the window or other aperture of a house or place of dwelling, with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
Device-based observation. A gross misdemeanor for entering upon another's property and surreptitiously installing or using any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a house or place of dwelling, with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
Hotel and intimate-space observation. A gross misdemeanor for peeping or recording through a window of a hotel sleeping room, tanning booth, or any other place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and where intimate parts are or are likely to be exposed.
Recording intimate images in private settings. A gross misdemeanor for using a device to photograph, record, or broadcast the intimate body parts of another person, without consent, in a location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including homes, hotel rooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and dressing areas.
Upskirt recording. A misdemeanor on a first offense (up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine) for surreptitiously observing or recording under or around a person's clothing to capture intimate body parts with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the person's privacy. A violation after a previous conviction under Minn. Stat. 609.746, subd. 1, or Minn. Stat. 609.749, or a violation against a minor under 18, is a gross misdemeanor. A violation after two or more prior convictions under that subdivision or section 609.749 is a felony.
Penalty escalation
The base offense for the dwelling, hotel, and intimate-image observation provisions (paragraphs (a) through (e)) is a gross misdemeanor. That offense escalates to a felony with a maximum of two years imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine when the defendant has a prior conviction under Minn. Stat. 609.746, subd. 1, or Minn. Stat. 609.749, or when the victim is a minor under 18. When the victim is under 18, the defendant is more than 36 months older than the victim, and the offense is committed with sexual intent, the maximum penalty increases to four years imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine. The upskirt-recording provision (paragraph (f)) has its own, lower base tier: a misdemeanor on a first offense, escalating to a gross misdemeanor after a prior conviction (under 609.746, subd. 1, or 609.749) or when the victim is a minor, and to a felony after two or more such prior convictions.
Locations where the law applies most clearly
The locations where this law applies most clearly include:
- Restrooms and public bathrooms
- Locker rooms and gym changing areas
- Fitting rooms in retail stores
- Private residences
- Hotel rooms and other temporary private lodgings
- Tanning booths
The statute has limits. Under Minn. Stat. 609.746, subd. 1(k), paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) do not apply to conduct in a medical facility, or in a commercial establishment whose owner has posted conspicuous signs warning that the premises are under surveillance by the owner or the owner's employees. The upskirt provision (paragraph (f)) and the dwelling provisions (paragraphs (a) and (b)) are not covered by that exception, and other laws, including the Privacy of Communications Act for audio, may still apply.
The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The concealed nature of the recording can in fact worsen legal exposure because it demonstrates deliberate concealment in a space the statute protects.
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 the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Consent from a third party does not help: under paragraph (e), the consent that matters is that of the person whose intimate parts are recorded.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in Minnesota
Minnesota does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). This means there is no Minnesota-specific statutory damages framework for capturing face geometry without consent.
However, the absence of a dedicated statute does not mean smart-glasses facial recognition is risk-free in Minnesota.
Common-law privacy torts
Minnesota courts recognize the common-law privacy torts set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Under Restatement 652B, a person who intentionally intrudes upon the solitude or seclusion of another is liable for invasion of privacy if the intrusion would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." The critical point is that actual publication of the footage is not required. The act of covert recording or covert identification can itself create civil liability.
A Minnesota smart glasses user who integrates facial-recognition software to identify strangers faces common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure under this doctrine, regardless of whether any state biometric statute technically applies.
The I-XRAY risk
In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated "I-XRAY": a system combining Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses with PimEyes, a reverse facial-recognition search engine, and AI to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. The system used third-party software, not Meta's own features, but it demonstrated that the camera hardware in consumer smart glasses is sufficient to enable real-time covert identification of individuals on a Minneapolis street or in a shopping mall.
A Minnesota user who replicates this integration would face civil intrusion-upon-seclusion liability. If any identified person is a resident of Illinois, the user would also face exposure under Illinois BIPA, which carries statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person for capturing face geometry without written consent.
The three biometric states
Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), Texas (CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 503.001), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375) are the three states with dedicated biometric laws most relevant to smart-glasses facial recognition. If you use your Minnesota-purchased smart glasses in Illinois, you are immediately subject to BIPA's requirements. If you scan faces in Texas for a commercial purpose without prior notice and consent, the Texas Attorney General can seek up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI. Minnesota residents who travel to these states with smart glasses should be aware that their home state's more permissive framework does not follow them.
Penalties Summary
Minnesota's penalties for unlawful recording and observation reflect the seriousness of communications privacy violations.
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercepting wire/oral/electronic communication | Minn. Stat. 626A.02 | Felony-level | $20,000 fine or 5 years imprisonment, or both |
| Interference with privacy, dwelling/hotel/intimate-image observation, paragraphs (a)-(e) (base) | Minn. Stat. 609.746 | Gross misdemeanor | Up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine |
| Interference with privacy, paragraphs (a)-(e) (prior conviction or victim under 18) | Minn. Stat. 609.746 | Felony | Up to 2 years imprisonment and $5,000 fine |
| Interference with privacy, paragraphs (b)/(d)/(e) (victim under 18, defendant more than 36 months older, sexual intent) | Minn. Stat. 609.746 | Felony | Up to 4 years imprisonment and $5,000 fine |
| Upskirt recording, paragraph (f) (first offense) | Minn. Stat. 609.746 | Misdemeanor | Up to 90 days jail and $1,000 fine |
| Upskirt recording, paragraph (f) (prior conviction under 609.746 subd. 1 or 609.749, or minor victim) | Minn. Stat. 609.746 | Gross misdemeanor | Up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine |
| Upskirt recording, paragraph (f) (two or more prior convictions under 609.746 subd. 1 or 609.749) | Minn. Stat. 609.746 | Felony | Up to 5 years imprisonment and/or $10,000 fine (default felony penalty, Minn. Stat. 609.03) |
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) imposes up to five years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per unlawful interception. The federal floor applies to any Minnesota recording that also violates federal law.
Minnesota also recognizes civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claims under state tort law. Covert recording in a semi-private context, recording in a private space, or using smart glasses to identify individuals without their knowledge can all support a civil claim regardless of whether criminal charges are filed.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Minnesota
You can record your own conversations. Minnesota's one-party consent rule means that as long as you are a genuine participant in the conversation, you may record it without disclosing that you are doing so. You do not need the other person's agreement, and there is no disclosure requirement under Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subd. 2(d).
Keep the capture LED visible. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Minnesota law does not currently mandate a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering or obscuring the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. Covering the LED can be used as evidence of intentional concealment in any legal dispute over covert recording.
Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though Minnesota law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting, such as a business negotiation, employment interview, or medical appointment, eliminates all ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.
Never record in private spaces. Minn. Stat. 609.746 criminalizes surreptitious recording in private locations, including restrooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms, and anywhere intimate parts are or may be exposed, and its narrow exceptions (medical facilities and signposted commercial surveillance) are not a safe harbor for a smart glasses wearer. Remove the glasses or stop recording before entering any such space.
Do not record others' conversations. Minnesota's one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, you cannot lawfully record it without at least one party's consent. The penalty for violating Minn. Stat. 626A.02 is up to five years imprisonment and a $20,000 fine.
Facial recognition adds civil risk. Minnesota has no standalone biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through a facial-recognition application exposes you to common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion liability. If any identified person resides in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you may also face liability under those states' biometric statutes, which can apply wherever the data is collected.
Driving. Minnesota's distracted driving law (Minn. Stat. 169.475) restricts the use of wireless communication devices while driving. Smart glasses are not a handheld device in the traditional sense, and no Minnesota statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving concerns as any electronic device use, and remains legally unsettled under current Minnesota law.
More Minnesota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Minnesota a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Minnesota is a one-party consent state. Under Minn. Stat. 626A.02, subd. 2(d), a participant in a conversation may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from the other party. Recording a conversation you are not part of requires at least one party's consent.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Minnesota without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Minnesota's one-party consent rule means you do not need to disclose the recording or obtain the other person's agreement. The only condition is that you are actually participating in the conversation being recorded, and that you are not recording for the purpose of committing a crime or tort.
Can I secretly film someone with my smart glasses in Minnesota?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being observed. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms, and anywhere intimate body parts are or may be exposed, recording without consent is generally a crime under Minn. Stat. 609.746, ranging from a misdemeanor (a first upskirt-recording violation) to a gross misdemeanor to a felony, depending on the specific provision, any prior convictions, and the age of the victim.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in Minnesota?
Unlawfully intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication under Minn. Stat. 626A.02 carries a penalty of up to $20,000 in fines or five years imprisonment, or both. Surreptitious observation or recording under Minn. Stat. 609.746 is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine) for the dwelling and hotel/intimate-image provisions, escalating to a felony with up to 2 or 4 years imprisonment when prior convictions or minors are involved. The separate upskirt-recording provision carries a lower misdemeanor tier (up to 90 days and $1,000) on a first offense, escalating to a gross misdemeanor and then a felony on repeat violations. Federal Wiretap Act violations add up to 5 years imprisonment and at least $10,000 in civil damages.
Does Minnesota have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
Minnesota does not have a standalone biometric statute like Illinois BIPA or Texas CUBI. There is no state-specific statutory damages framework for capturing face geometry without consent. However, Minnesota recognizes the common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion tort under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B, which can create civil liability for covert identification of individuals regardless of publication. If any identified person resides in Illinois, BIPA's per-scan statutory damages of up to $5,000 may also apply.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Minnesota?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in Minnesota. 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 external notice of recording, and deliberately covering it can be used as evidence of covert recording intent in any dispute.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in Minnesota?
Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter such as a traffic stop or street interaction, Minnesota's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording without disclosure. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity while recording.
Does covering the recording LED on my smart glasses create legal problems in Minnesota?
Covering the LED is not itself a Minnesota crime under current law, but it removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. In any legal dispute over covert recording, evidence that you deliberately covered the indicator light can be used to establish non-consensual recording intent. California SB 1130 would have criminalized LED cover-up in that state, but the Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so California enacted no wearable-device recording rule and still applies its all-party consent law.
Updates
We corrected our description of Minnesota's interference-with-privacy statute to state that its private-place recording offenses require specific elements, such as entering another's property or intending to record intimate parts, rather than covering all covert video in a home or hotel room, and that the intimate-image provision covers photographing, recording, or broadcasting.
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part expectation-of-privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurrence rather than the Court's opinion.
Corrected our description of Minnesota's interference-with-privacy statute (Minn. Stat. 609.746), including its property-entry element, prior-conviction triggers, age-gap wording, medical-facility and signposted-business exceptions, and the default felony penalty, and completed a quotation of the one-party consent provision.
Corrected the classification of Minnesota's upskirt-recording law: a first offense under Minn. Stat. 609.746 subd. 1(f) is a misdemeanor, not a gross misdemeanor as the page previously stated, escalating to gross misdemeanor on a repeat violation or minor victim and to felony after two or more prior convictions.
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.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626A: WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION
§ 626A.02INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBITEDIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Offenses. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) 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: (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this subdivision; or (4) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (1995) applied the 626A.02 party exemption, finding a secret recording made for commercial newsgathering was not intercepted for the purpose of a tortious act. State v. Page (1986) held an officer's use of a regular telephone extension in the ordinary course of duty was not an interception.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1995, 526 N.W.2d 402)“…l to the federal wiretapping statutes. Compare Minn.Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 1 (1992), with 18…”
- State v. Page (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 386 N.W.2d 330)“…g rule applies. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1982); Minn.Stat. § 626A.02 (1984). The federal rule makes it unlaw…”
- State v. Olkon (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1980, 299 N.W.2d 89)✓An undercover deputy posing as an injury client taped his calls and office meetings with a lawyer later convicted of attempted theft by swindle; the court rejected suppression, holding one party's consent meant no warrant was needed, citing the statute's consent exception.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Minnesota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Minnesota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 626A.01DEFINITIONSIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Terms. As used in this chapter, the terms defined in this section have the meanings given them. Subd. 2. Person. "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, joint stock company, trust, or association, including but not limited to, the subscriber to the telephone or telegraph service involved and any law enforcement officer. Subd. 3. Wire communication. "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. "Wire communication" includes any electronic storage of the communication. Subd. 4. Oral communication. "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 the term does not include any electronic communication. Subd. 5. Intercept.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Quinn (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1989, 436 N.W.2d 758)“…ied and now forms part of the Privacy of Communication Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 626A.01-.23 (1986). The Minnesota act contains…”
- State v. Page (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 386 N.W.2d 330)“…terms track with the federal definitions. See Minn. Stat. § 626A.01, subds. 3, 5, 6. The police in t…”
- State v. Edrozo (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1998, 578 N.W.2d 719)“…tances justifying such expectation.” 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (2), Minn.Stat. § 626A.01, subd. 4. . See Carol M. Bast a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules, Minnesota Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE
§ 609.746INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACYIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household. (b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pakhnyuk (2019) held the intent to intrude on privacy in section 609.746, subd. 1(a) attaches only to the peeping, not to entering the property. State v. Ulmer (2006) applied subd. 1(c) to a public restroom, holding the space above a urinal partition is an aperture and the shielded space is private.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Pakhnyuk (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2019, 926 N.W.2d 914)✓A houseguest sat on the roof and watched a 14-year-old undressing through a bedroom window; the Minnesota Supreme Court held the intent to intrude element attaches only to the peeping clause, not to entering the property, and affirmed the conviction.
- State v. Ulmer (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2006, 719 N.W.2d 213)✓A man leaned over a urinal partition in a store restroom to watch a seven-year-old boy urinate; the court of appeals held a user has an expectation of privacy in that partitioned space and that the gap above the partition is an aperture under the statute.
- State v. Morris (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2002, 644 N.W.2d 114)✓A man carried a camera concealed in a bag and filmed up a store clerk's skirt; the court of appeals held the area under a skirt is a place with an expectation of privacy and the camera itself an aperture, and rejected the commercial-establishment exemption.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights, Minnesota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules, Minnesota Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules
§ 609.03PUNISHMENT WHEN NOT OTHERWISE FIXEDIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
If a person is convicted of a crime for which no punishment is otherwise provided the person may be sentenced as follows: (1) If the crime is a felony, to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both; or (2) If the crime is a gross misdemeanor, to imprisonment for not more than 364 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both; or (3) If the crime is a misdemeanor, to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or both; or (4) If the crime is other than a misdemeanor and a fine is imposed but the amount is not specified, to payment of a fine of not more than $1,000, or to imprisonment for a specified term of not more than six months if the fine is not paid.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Guminga (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1986, 395 N.W.2d 344)“…equally with the person actually making the same. Under Minn.Stat. § 609.03 (1984), a defendant who commits a gross…”
- State v. Weltzin (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2001, 630 N.W.2d 406)“…0 days in jail or by a fine of up to $1,000. 1 Minn.Stat. § 609.03, subd. 3 (2000). At arraignment…”
- State v. Strobel (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2018, 921 N.W.2d 563)“…0 days, but not more than one year, may be imposed. See Minn. Stat. § 609.03 (2) (2016) (limiting sentences for gro…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota DWI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026), Minnesota Assault Laws: Five Degrees, Felonies and Penalties (2026), Minnesota Felony and Misdemeanor Levels: Sentences and Fines (2026)
§ 609.749HARASSMENT; STALKING; PENALTIESIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Subdivision 1. MS 2019 Supp [Repealed, 2020 c 96 s 6] Subd. 1a. MS 2018 [Repealed, 2020 c 96 s 6] Subd. 1b. Venue. (a) When acts constituting a violation of this section are committed in two or more counties, the accused may be prosecuted in any county in which one of the acts was committed for all acts in violation of this section. (b) The conduct described in subdivision 2, clauses (4) and (5), may be prosecuted at the place where any call is made or received or, in the case of wireless or electronic communication or any communication made through any available technologies, where the actor or victim resides or in the jurisdiction of the victim's designated address if the victim participates in the address confidentiality program established by chapter 5B. The conduct described in subdivision 2, clause (2), may be prosecuted where the actor or victim resides.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 90 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Minnesota v. Don Antoine Jones (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2014, 848 N.W.2d 528)“…was charged in Scott County with stalking, a violation of Minn. Stat. § 609.749, subds. 2(4), 4(b) (2012), and violati…”
- State v. MacHholz (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1998, 574 N.W.2d 415)“…conjunction with subdivision 1(1), and subdivision 3(1) of Minn. Stat. § 609.749 are invalid under the First Amendment…”
- State v. Orsello (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1996, 554 N.W.2d 70)“…s from his conviction under Minnesota's "stalking" statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.749 (1993). Orsello argues that the statute…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (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, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 169: TRAFFIC REGULATIONS
§ 169.475USE OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICEIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Electronic message" means a self-contained piece of digital communication that is designed or intended to be transmitted between physical devices. An electronic message includes, but is not limited to: email; a text message; an instant message; a command or request to access a web page; a voice mail message; a transmitted image; transmitted video content, including through video calling; transmitted gaming data; and other data transmitted using a commonly recognized electronic communications protocol. An electronic message does not include: voice or audio data transmitted as a result of making a phone call; data transmitted between a motor vehicle and a wireless communications device located in the vehicle; data transmitted by a two-way radio, citizens band radio, or amateur radio used in accordance with Federal Communications Commission rules and regulations; or data transmitted automatically without direct initiation by a person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Also relied on in: Minnesota Windshield Mounting Laws (2026 Guide)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Minn. Stat. 626A.02 (Minnesota Privacy of Communications Act). Prohibits intentional interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications. Subd. 2(d) provides the one-party consent exception for participants. Penalty: up to $20,000 fine or five years imprisonment, or both.(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. 626A.01 (Definitions). Defines 'oral communication' as any communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that it is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation. Defines 'wire communication,' 'intercept,' and 'electronic communication.'(revisor.mn.gov)
- Minn. Stat. 609.746 (Interference with privacy). Prohibits surreptitious observation and recording in private spaces including dwellings, hotel rooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas, plus a separate upskirt-recording provision. Base offense for dwelling/hotel/intimate-image observation (paragraphs (a)-(e)): gross misdemeanor. Upskirt recording (paragraph (f)) is a misdemeanor on a first offense, escalating to gross misdemeanor on a repeat violation or minor victim and to felony after two or more prior convictions. Prior conviction or minor victim under paragraphs (a)-(e): felony up to 2 years / $5,000 fine. Minor victim under 18, 36+ months age gap, sexual intent: felony up to 4 years / $5,000 fine.(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at subd. 2511(2)(d). Criminal penalty: up to 5 years imprisonment. Civil liability: at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2510(2) (Definition of 'oral communication'). An aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public 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 there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.(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)
- Minn. Stat. 609.03, Sentence for Crime (default felony penalty)(revisor.mn.gov)