Missouri
Missouri Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Missouri, 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 using the glasses to capture intimate areas without consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Missouri?
Yes. Missouri 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 Missouri 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 party to any conversation being recorded?
Smart glasses present a unique compliance challenge because they are visually indistinguishable from ordinary eyewear. A person nearby has no obvious notice that a recording is occurring, which makes the legal framework governing their use especially important to understand before you wear them in social or professional settings.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Missouri under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, or 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. Silent video capture in a public space does not meet that definition. Missouri's own wiretap statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402, addresses the interception of spoken wire and oral communications, not video observation in public.
This means smart glasses worn while walking on a St. Louis street, attending a game at Kauffman Stadium, visiting a state park, or touring the Gateway Arch 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 an office break room, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of words spoken there.
In his concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan described a twofold requirement: a person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Missouri courts apply this same framework when evaluating whether a conversation or location is sufficiently private for the state's eavesdropping and wiretap statutes to attach.
The practical implication for smart glasses wearers is that recording in a conference room, a doctor's office, or a private home requires care even in a one-party consent state. The audio component of any recording captures spoken words that may carry legal protection, and the video component may capture spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from being visually observed.
Recording inside private places
Using smart glasses to secretly capture images of someone who is fully or partially nude inside a private location, such as a home, a hotel room, or a medical facility, raises serious criminal exposure under Missouri's invasion of privacy statute (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252) independent of the audio-consent analysis. The statute also covers images taken under or through a person's clothing. Covert video of a clothed person in a private place is not itself an offense under § 565.252, although other laws, including the audio-consent rules below, may still apply.
Recording Audio and Missouri's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the central legal issue for smart glasses users in Missouri, and Missouri law is clear and straightforward.
The statute
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 is Missouri's wiretap and eavesdropping statute. It prohibits the knowing interception of any wire communication, such as a phone call. For oral (in-person) conversations, it prohibits using a device to intercept them only "when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication." The penalty for a violation is a Class E felony, carrying up to four years imprisonment under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 558.011.
That device condition matters for smart glasses. A device that simply records an in-person conversation locally does not clearly meet it, while glasses that relay or stream audio over a wireless link may. The statute does not say how it applies to wearables that do both.
For a private person, the statute's one-party consent exception (§ 542.402.2(3)) covers wire communications: it is not unlawful to intercept one where the person "is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent," unless the communication "is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." Unlike the federal Wiretap Act exception (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), which covers wire, oral, and electronic communications, Missouri's private-party exception does not list oral communications.
The federal exception carries the same carve-out: a participant's recording loses protection if it is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Recording your own conversations for legitimate personal, business, or legal purposes is protected. Recording a conversation in order to blackmail, defraud, or otherwise harm the other party is not.
What one-party consent means for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Missouri, the one-party rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a coffee shop, in a business meeting, at a job interview, or during a personal exchange is lawful. You are a participant. Missouri law does not require you to disclose the recording.
- 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 phone call is a Class E felony under § 542.402, and so is capturing an in-person conversation with a device that transmits by radio or interferes with transmission. Federal law separately prohibits intercepting another person's private oral conversation without a party's consent.
Federal alignment
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) lets a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication record it, unless the purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act. Missouri's statute does not prohibit what that exception allows, so there is no conflict. A Missouri participant can record their own conversations lawfully under both state and federal law.
For a full analysis of Missouri's consent framework, see the Missouri Recording Laws page.
Civil liability for unlawful interceptions
Beyond criminal exposure, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 provides a civil remedy to "any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used" in violation of the statute. That person may recover actual damages (with a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater), punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney's fees. The civil remedy is independent of any criminal prosecution and can apply even where criminal charges are not pursued. Its text covers wire communications only, so it does not reach an in-person conversation captured by smart glasses; claims over in-person recordings would rest on federal law or common-law privacy torts instead.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance
Regardless of the consent rules, Missouri law absolutely prohibits recording a person's nude or partially nude body in locations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The one-party consent rule does not override these prohibitions.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252: Invasion of privacy
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 prohibits creating any image of another person without that person's consent while they are in a state of full or partial nudity in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute also prohibits capturing images under or through a person's clothing for the purpose of viewing their body or undergarments without consent.
The penalty structure is:
- Base offense: Class A misdemeanor, carrying up to one year in jail under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 558.011.
- Enhanced to Class E felony (up to four years imprisonment) if: the offender distributes or transmits the image electronically; the offender disseminates the image to another person; multiple persons were photographed during the same course of conduct; or the offender has a prior conviction for invasion of privacy.
Locations where this law applies most clearly
The offense requires an image of a person in a state of full or partial nudity (or an image taken under or through clothing), so it arises most often in places like these:
- Restrooms and public bathrooms
- Locker rooms and gym changing areas
- Fitting rooms in retail stores
- Private residences
- Hotel rooms and other temporary private lodgings
- Medical examination and treatment rooms
The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The hidden nature of the recording can in fact strengthen the prosecution's case by demonstrating deliberate concealment and a consciousness of guilt.
Federal law adds a parallel floor. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation is a separate federal offense. This applies on military bases, federal courthouses, national parks, and other federal property in Missouri.
The rule is absolute: no location in Missouri, and no consent obtained from any person other than the individual whose intimate areas are being filmed, can legalize recording that person nude or partially nude in a space where they reasonably expect not to be visually observed.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in Missouri
Missouri 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). Missouri's legislature has not enacted a dedicated biometric consent requirement as of June 2026.
What Missouri law does not cover
There is no Missouri statute that requires prior consent before capturing a person's face geometry, retina scan, or voiceprint for identification purposes. A business or individual deploying smart-glasses-based facial recognition in Missouri does not face a state-law biometric violation as such. The absence of a dedicated statute, however, does not mean there is no legal exposure.
Civil tort liability
Common-law privacy torts apply in Missouri regardless of the absence of a biometric statute. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), intentionally scanning and identifying a person without their knowledge in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability. The act of intrusion itself creates the cause of action; there is no requirement that the recorded footage or identification data be published or shared. Missouri courts recognize the intrusion upon seclusion tort.
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. The demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. A Missouri user who replicates that type of integration faces civil tort liability under § 652B regardless of the absence of a Missouri biometric statute.
Cross-state biometric risk
If you use your Missouri-purchased smart glasses while traveling to Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you immediately become subject to those states' dedicated biometric laws. Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14) carries statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person whose face geometry is captured without written consent, with a private right of action. Texas CUBI (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001) carries civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, enforced by the Texas Attorney General. Washington's biometric law (RCW Chapter 19.375) requires notice, consent, or an opt-out mechanism before commercially enrolling biometric identifiers in a database.
Penalties Summary
Missouri's recording-related penalties depend on which statute is violated.
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of a wire communication, or of an oral communication with a radio-transmitting or interfering device | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 | Class E felony | 4 years imprisonment |
| Invasion of privacy (base) | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 | Class A misdemeanor | 1 year in jail |
| Invasion of privacy (distribution/multiple victims/prior) | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 | Class E felony | 4 years imprisonment |
Civil remedies under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 for unlawful interception of a wire communication include a minimum recovery of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney's fees.
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 Missouri recording that also violates federal law.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Missouri
You can record your own conversations. Missouri's one-party 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.
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. Missouri 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 and is especially relevant if law enforcement or a civil plaintiff argues that the recording was made with consciousness of its unlawful nature.
Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though Missouri 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. The prohibitions under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 on recording intimate areas without consent in private locations are absolute. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, fitting rooms, or other spaces where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation.
Do not record others' conversations. The one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, capturing it without at least one party's consent can violate the federal Wiretap Act, and it is a Class E felony under Missouri law for a phone call or where the device transmits by radio or interferes with transmission.
Watch the criminal purpose carve-out. The federal one-party exception (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), and Missouri's exception for phone calls in § 542.402, disappear if you are recording in order to commit a criminal or tortious act. Recording to gather leverage for blackmail, to harass a person, or to commit fraud strips away the one-party protection even though you are a participant in the conversation.
Facial recognition adds risk. Missouri has no standalone biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through a facial-recognition application exposes you to common-law tort liability. If the person identified resides in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you may also face liability under those states' biometric statutes.
Driving. Missouri's Siddens Bening Hands-Free Law, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 304.822, replaced the state's old handheld-texting statute (§ 304.820, repealed effective August 28, 2023) and applies to all drivers, not just drivers 21 and under; citations have been issuable since January 1, 2025. It bars physically holding or supporting an electronic communication device, and separately prohibits watching a video, other than navigation data, or recording, posting, sending, or broadcasting video on such a device, regardless of whether the device is held, mounted, or worn. A voice-operated or hands-free feature is exempt, and viewing a map for navigation is exempt. That makes hands-free navigation display through smart glasses likely permitted, while recording or live-streaming video with smart glasses while driving falls within § 304.822's video-recording and broadcasting prohibition, the same as it would on a handheld phone, and is not legally unsettled. A first violation carries up to a $150 fine, rising to $250 and then $500 for repeat violations within 24 months, with misdemeanor and felony enhancements when a violation contributes to property damage, injury, or death.
More Missouri Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Missouri a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Missouri is generally treated as a one-party consent state. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 lets a party to a phone call record it, and its ban on intercepting in-person conversations applies only to devices that transmit by radio or interfere with transmission. Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) also lets a participant record without the other party's consent. Recording a conversation you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party to that conversation.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Missouri without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Missouri's one-party consent rule means you do not need to disclose the recording or obtain the other person's agreement. The conditions are that you are actually participating in the conversation being recorded and, under the federal Wiretap Act, that you are not recording for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.
Can I secretly film someone with my smart glasses in Missouri?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being seen. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms, recording intimate body parts without consent is a crime under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, a Class A misdemeanor that escalates to a Class E felony if images are distributed, multiple victims are involved, or the offender has a prior conviction.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in Missouri?
Unlawfully intercepting a wire communication, or an oral communication with a device that transmits by radio or interferes with transmission, is a Class E felony under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402, carrying up to four years imprisonment. Invasion of privacy by recording intimate areas is a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail) that escalates to a Class E felony for distribution, multiple victims, or a prior conviction. A person whose wire communication is unlawfully intercepted can recover at least $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages for willful violations, under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.
Does Missouri have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
No. Missouri does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute as of June 2026. There is no state requirement for prior consent before capturing face geometry or other biometric identifiers. However, common-law privacy torts such as intrusion upon seclusion apply, and if you use your glasses to run facial recognition on someone located in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, those states' biometric laws apply to you.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Missouri?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in Missouri. 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 Missouri?
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, Missouri'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 Missouri?
Covering the LED is not itself a Missouri 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 intentional concealment and 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
Clarified that Missouri's invasion of privacy statute (§ 565.252) applies to images of a person in full or partial nudity or taken under clothing, not to all covert video in private places.
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 how Missouri's wiretap law applies to in-person recordings: the state ban on intercepting oral conversations covers only devices that transmit by radio or interfere with transmission, its private-party consent exception and civil remedy cover phone (wire) communications, and a participant's right to record in-person conversations comes from the federal Wiretap Act.
Corrected this page's driving-law citation from Mo. Rev. Stat. § 304.820, which was repealed in 2023, to the current Siddens Bening Hands-Free Law (§ 304.822), and clarified that recording or broadcasting video with smart glasses while driving is prohibited under that law regardless of whether the device is held or worn.
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.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVII (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), Chapter 542
§ 542.402Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.400 to 542.422, a person is guilty of a class E felony and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law, if such person: (1) Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication; (2) Knowingly 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 transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; provided, however, that nothing in sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall be construed to prohibit the use by law enforcement officers of body microphones and transmitters in undercover investigations for the acquisition of evidence and the protection of law enforcement officers and others working under their direction in such investigations; (3) Knowingly discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts in Missouri have applied section 542.402 to covert audio recording. Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (2025) let a wiretap count over recorded attorney-client jail calls proceed, with no prior consent shown, and Ward (2026) found a claim over a secretly recorded workplace conversation would not be futile.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…nn. § 750 .539e (West 1991); Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2000); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (19…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…p. 1995); Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 626A.02, 626A.13 (West 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 542.402 , 542.418 (1996); Mont.Code Ann. § 45-8…”
- John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2025, 126 F.4th 1329)✓Patients alleged a hospital's patient portal secretly sent health data to Facebook, pleading a Missouri wiretap claim under 542.402; the Eighth Circuit addressed only removal, held the wiretap count did not change that analysis, and affirmed remand without reaching its merits.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Missouri Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Missouri Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent
§ 542.418Use of contents of wiretap in civil action, limitations on — illegal wiretap, cause of action, damages, attorney fees and costs — good faith reliance on court order a prima facie defense.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. The contents of any wire communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any civil or administrative proceeding, except in civil actions brought pursuant to this section. 2. Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall: (1) Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications; and (2) Be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars whichever is greater; (b) Punitive damages on a showing of a willful or intentional violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422; and (c) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 3. A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 542.408 shall constitute a prima facie defense to any civil or criminal action brought under sections 542.400 to 542.422.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…int on appeal is that the trial court erred in holding that § 542.418, RSMo 1994, 1 of the Missouri Wi…”
- Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…e Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 is stated as a criminal statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 creates a private right of action in a…”
- Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…red. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.2. However, it is not unlawful under th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP, Missouri AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Missouri Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 542.400Definitions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
As used in sections 542.400 to 542.422, the following words and phrases mean: (1) "Aggrieved person", a person who was a party to any intercepted wire communication or a person against whom the interception was directed; (2) "Communication common carrier", an individual or corporation undertaking to transport messages for compensation; (3) "Contents", when used with respect to any wire communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties, the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication; (4) "Court of competent jurisdiction", any circuit court having general criminal jurisdiction within the territorial jurisdiction where the communication is to be intercepted including any circuit judge specially assigned by the supreme court of Missouri pursuant to section 542.404; (5) "Electronic, mechanical, or other device", any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, owned by the user or furnished to the subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…Senate Bill 693 which became effective on January 1, 1995. § 542.400, RSMo Supp.1995. The Wiretap Act is found in…”
- Lou Angel John Dilliner Scott Malone v. Thomas L. Williams Sylvia A. Byrnes-Ales Donna Humphrey the City of Webb City, a Municipal Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1993, 12 F.3d 786)“…988 & Supp. IV1992), and Missouri wiretap law, Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 542.400-.424 (Supp. 1992). We affirm. An…”
- Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…p statute. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.400 et seq. are the Missouri wiretap statut…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565
§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484)“…contends, because the Missouri invasioh-of-privacy statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
- T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915)“…e where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252.1(1). Reasonable officers could have be…”
- United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)“…contends, because the Missouri invasion-of-privacy statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Missouri Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Neighbor Rules, Missouri Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 558
§ 558.011Sentence of imprisonment, terms — conditional release.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
1. The authorized terms of imprisonment, including both prison and conditional release terms, are: (1) For a class A felony, a term of years not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years, or life imprisonment; (2) For a class B felony, a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years; (3) For a class C felony, a term of years not less than three years and not to exceed ten years; (4) For a class D felony, a term of years not to exceed seven years; (5) For a class E felony, a term of years not to exceed four years; (6) For a class A misdemeanor, a term not to exceed one year; (7) For a class B misdemeanor, a term not to exceed six months; (8) For a class C misdemeanor, a term not to exceed fifteen days.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 128 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rentschler v. Nixon (Supreme Court of Missouri 2010, 311 S.W.3d 783)“…When all were sentenced, the conditional release statute, section 558.011, RSMo 1978, was silent regarding whether viol…”
- Hall v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 10 S.W.3d 540)“…court erroneously declared and applied the law by applying § 558.011, RSMo 1994, as opposed to the 1986 version, t…”
- State v. Quisenberry (Supreme Court of Missouri 1982, 639 S.W.2d 579)“…If not, court imposition of a longer sentence is error. Section 558.011, RSMo Cum.Supp.1981, provides in pertinent pa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Missouri DWI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026), Missouri Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
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: Missouri Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections, South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (Wiretapping and eavesdropping). Missouri's one-party consent statute for wire and oral communications. Prohibits knowing interception by non-participants; one-party exception at subsection (2). Class E felony. Effective January 1, 2017.(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 (Civil remedies for unlawful interception). Provides actual damages (minimum $100/day or $10,000 whichever is greater), punitive damages for willful violations, and attorney's fees.(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252 (Invasion of privacy). Prohibits recording a person in the nude or under clothing without consent in private locations. Class A misdemeanor; Class E felony on distribution, multiple victims, or prior conviction.(revisor.mo.gov)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 558.011 (Authorized terms of imprisonment). Class E felony up to 4 years; Class A misdemeanor up to 1 year.(revisor.mo.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). 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'). 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 on federal property without consent.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance on lawful use.(meta.com)
- Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.400 (Definitions). Defines 'intercept', 'oral communication', and 'wire communication' for Missouri's wiretap statute.(revisor.mo.gov)