Montana Smart Glasses Recording Laws (MCA 45-8-213)

Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Montana. You can record video in public spaces without restriction. However, recording audio with your glasses is governed by Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 45-8-213, which requires that all parties to a conversation have knowledge that a recording is taking place. Montana's rule is notice-based: an audible announcement before or at the start of recording is sufficient to satisfy the law, but secretly recording a conversation with a hidden device is a criminal offense. Understanding where that line falls matters before you press record.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Montana?

Yes. Smart glasses are consumer electronics. Montana has no law restricting ownership, possession, or wearing of smart glasses, augmented reality eyewear, or similar wearable technology. The Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses and comparable devices are sold and used throughout the state without restriction.

The legal complexity arises entirely from what you do with your glasses, not from possessing them. Two layers of law govern that: the audio consent rule (MCA 45-8-213) for capturing spoken conversations, and the voyeurism statute (MCA 45-5-223) for visual recording in locations where people have a reasonable expectation of bodily privacy.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Video-only recording in a public space is generally lawful in Montana. When you walk down a street, enter a retail store, or attend an outdoor event, the people around you have a reduced expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed. This principle traces to Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), where the Court held that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places," and Justice Harlan's concurrence framed the test as requiring both an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. In open public spaces, neither prong is typically satisfied for mere visual observation.

Smart glasses used to capture video footage of public spaces, events, or street scenes therefore do not violate Montana law simply by recording what is visible to anyone standing there.

The analysis changes when you move into private or semi-private spaces. A private home, medical office, hotel room, or even a secluded corner of a restaurant booth can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy that video recording could violate. The key question is not whether a space is technically accessible to the public, but whether persons within it have a reasonable expectation that their activities are not being captured on video.

Montana does not have a statute that broadly restricts video recording in private spaces the way some states do, but two independent legal constraints apply: the voyeurism statute (addressed below) and civil tort liability for intrusion upon seclusion.

Recording Audio: Montana's All-Party Knowledge Rule

Montana's rule on audio recording is found in MCA 45-8-213. The statute makes it a criminal offense to "record or cause to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation."

The operative phrase is "without the knowledge of all parties." Montana does not require that all parties actively consent to or agree with the recording. The statute requires only that they be aware it is happening. An audible announcement made before or at the start of recording is sufficient to satisfy the law. A statement such as "I am recording this conversation" puts all parties on notice. Their response, whether they object or say nothing, does not determine whether the recording is lawful.

This distinguishes Montana from true all-party consent states like California or Illinois, where active consent from every party is required. Montana is better understood as an all-party knowledge or notice-based state: notice satisfies the requirement, consent is not the standard.

For smart glasses wearers, this framework has a practical implication. If you are recording a conversation with your glasses and you verbally announce the recording at the start, you are within the law regardless of whether the other party agrees. If you are recording the same conversation silently, relying on the assumption that the other party knows, you are in legally uncertain territory. The statute's language refers to a "hidden" device, which raises the question of whether glasses worn visibly in a face-to-face interaction constitute a hidden device. That question has not been definitively resolved by Montana courts as of 2026. Prudent practice is to announce the recording rather than rely on the argument that your glasses are not "hidden."

Exceptions to the Knowledge Requirement

MCA 45-8-213 provides several exceptions where the knowledge-of-all-parties requirement does not apply:

Public officials and employees performing official duty. Under MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(i), the knowledge requirement does not apply to elected or appointed public officials or public employees "when the transcription or recording is done in the performance of official duty." That language most naturally covers recordings officials make in their own official work. It does not expressly exempt a member of the public who records an official, so the safer course when recording a police officer or other official is to record openly rather than rely on this exception.

Speakers at public meetings. A person who voluntarily addresses an audience at a public meeting, town hall, or similar gathering has no reasonable expectation that their public remarks are private. Recording is lawful without announcement.

Persons given warning. Under MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii), the rule does not apply to persons given warning of the transcription or recording, and if one person provides the warning, either party may record. The statute does not say that a posted policy or other general notice counts as a warning, so a direct warning to the people in the conversation is the safer practice.

Health care emergency calls. Under MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iv), a health care facility, or a government agency that deals with health care, may record a health care emergency telephone communication made to it. This exception does not reach an individual smart glasses wearer.

For most smart glasses users, the exceptions that matter are the public-meeting exception and the warning exception. Outside them, the practical rule is to make sure everyone in the conversation knows you are recording.

What "Private Conversation" Means

The text of MCA 45-8-213(1)(c) does not contain a privacy-expectation element. It reaches any conversation recorded with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties, not only conversations the participants expect to be private. A quiet work discussion between two colleagues, a conversation in someone's home, a medical appointment, or a business meeting in a conference room are common settings where covert recording with a wearable device is most likely to be noticed and challenged.

Smart glasses worn in ordinary social, professional, or domestic settings create exactly the kind of covert-recording risk the statute targets. The glasses look like ordinary eyewear. No one watching you can tell the device is recording. That is precisely why the knowledge-of-all-parties rule exists: the invisibility of the recording method does not excuse the failure to give notice.

Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Surreptitious Visual Observation

MCA 45-5-223 prohibits surreptitious visual observation or recording under two specific prongs, not a general ban on recording in any room where someone expects privacy.

The statute covers two categories of conduct. First, it prohibits hiding, waiting, or loitering in or near a private dwelling house, apartment, or other place of residence to observe or record occupants without their knowledge. Second, it prohibits purposely or knowingly observing or recording a visual image of another person's sexual or intimate parts in a public place without their knowledge when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

How those two prongs reach a specific venue depends on the facts. A retail fitting room, a gym locker room, or a restroom inside a business open to the public can fall within the public-place prong if the recording captures someone's sexual or intimate body parts there, because the surrounding venue is a public place even though the fitting room itself is enclosed. A private residence and an occupied hotel room fall more clearly within the private-dwelling prong. A medical examination room fits neither prong cleanly under this statute's text: it is not a private dwelling and is not ordinarily treated as a public place, so MCA 45-5-223 does not clearly reach covert recording there, though recording anyone's intimate or sexual body parts without consent in a clinical setting still carries civil exposure under Montana's intrusion-upon-seclusion tort and can raise separate liability under facility policy or federal law where it applies.

Smart glasses are treated identically to any other recording device under this statute, and the notice-or-consent framework of MCA 45-8-213 does not create an exception to it. Smart glasses' resemblance to ordinary eyewear does not create a legal exception; using a device that conceals its recording function in a location the statute reaches would support a finding of purposeful or knowing violation.

Penalties under MCA 45-5-223 scale with repeat offenses. A first conviction carries up to $500 fine or up to 6 months in county jail, or both. A second conviction brings up to $1,000 fine or up to 1 year of incarceration, or both. A third or subsequent conviction is punishable by up to $10,000 fine or up to 5 years of incarceration, or both.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Data in Montana

As of June 2026, Montana does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW Chapter 19.375. Montana has not enacted a law requiring notice and consent before collecting face geometry, voiceprints, or other biometric identifiers.

Smart glasses wearers in Montana who use third-party facial recognition applications to identify strangers are not subject to Montana-specific statutory biometric liability. However, several other legal constraints remain relevant.

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522) does not reach video capture, but the audio component of any conversation captured alongside facial scanning is subject to MCA 45-8-213 and the federal consent framework.

Civil liability under common law intrusion upon seclusion, recognized in Montana and grounded in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, can apply whenever a person intentionally intrudes upon the seclusion of another in a way that is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Using a facial recognition application attached to smart glasses to identify strangers without their knowledge could satisfy both elements of the intrusion tort: the intentional intrusion, and the objective offensiveness standard.

The 2024 I-XRAY demonstration by Harvard students, which paired Meta Ray-Ban glasses with facial recognition software to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses, illustrated precisely the kind of conduct that intrusion-upon-seclusion doctrine reaches, even in the absence of a specific biometric statute. Montana residents have no statutory floor below which such conduct is automatically lawful.

Residents and visitors should also be aware that if smart glasses are used with facial recognition in states with biometric laws, for example while traveling to Illinois or Texas, those states' laws apply based on where the data collection occurs.

Criminal Penalties Under MCA 45-8-213

A first violation of MCA 45-8-213(1)(c) for recording a conversation without the knowledge of all parties carries a fine of up to $500, imprisonment in county jail for up to 6 months, or both. This is a misdemeanor-level penalty under Montana's sentencing framework.

For repeat violations involving harassment or extortion under MCA 45-8-213(1)(a) and (1)(b), penalties escalate significantly. A second offense carries up to 1 year in jail or a $1,000 fine. A third or subsequent offense carries up to 5 years in state prison or a $10,000 fine.

MCA 45-8-213 also carries a separate, higher felony tier for publishing, distributing, or threatening to disclose real or digitally-fabricated intimate images without consent under (1)(d) and (1)(e), which is directly relevant to smart-glasses misuse if captured footage is later published or used to threaten someone. A second or subsequent conviction under those provisions is a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment, a fine of up to $25,000, or both -- a higher ceiling than the $10,000 maximum that applies to repeat (1)(a)/(1)(b) harassment and extortion offenses.

Separate from criminal liability, a person who makes an unauthorized recording may face civil claims. Intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B imposes liability for the act of recording itself, even if the footage is never shared. If the recording is subsequently published or distributed, public disclosure of private facts under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D provides an additional theory of recovery. Montana courts have recognized the privacy torts as a matter of state common law.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Montana

Announce before recording conversations. Montana's notice-based framework is satisfied by a brief, audible statement that you are recording. This does not require permission; it requires awareness. "I'm recording this" said clearly before a conversation begins puts you on solid legal ground.

Let the capture LED be visible. Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a white LED indicator that illuminates whenever the camera is active. Meta's official guidance instructs users to let the LED shine rather than cover or obscure it. In Montana, where the statute targets "hidden" devices, a visible LED contributes to the argument that your device is not hidden. Covering or disabling the LED would undercut that argument and could support an inference of intent to record covertly.

Do not record in private spaces without consent. MCA 45-5-223 bars recording anyone's sexual or intimate body parts in a public place, which reaches restrooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms inside businesses open to the public, and separately bars surreptitiously observing or recording an occupant of a private dwelling. Neither prong depends on the notice framework under MCA 45-8-213.

Public meetings are exempt; police encounters are less clear. MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(ii) exempts persons speaking at public meetings, so recording a speaker at a public meeting does not require an announcement. The official-duty exception in (2)(a)(i) is written for recordings made by officials and employees in their duties, not recordings made of them, so when recording a police encounter or other official, keep the device visible and say that you are recording.

Be cautious in workplace and domestic settings. A business meeting, a conversation with a healthcare provider, or a discussion in a private home are contexts where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their spoken words. Applying the notice rule in these settings is both legally prudent and practically simple.

Do not attach facial recognition software for identifying strangers. While Montana lacks a biometric statute, civil tort liability and the chilling effect of federal law make this a high-risk use. The I-XRAY demonstration proved the technology works at scale; Montana courts are capable of applying intrusion-upon-seclusion doctrine to conduct that is highly offensive to a reasonable person even without a specific statute.

More Montana Laws

• Montana Data Privacy Laws
• Montana Deepfake Laws
• Montana Drone Laws
• Montana Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to record someone with smart glasses in Montana?

Smart glasses recording is legal in Montana with proper notice. For video in public spaces, no announcement is needed because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being seen. For audio recording of a conversation, MCA 45-8-213 requires that all parties have knowledge of the recording. An audible announcement before or at the start of recording satisfies this requirement. Secret audio recording without notifying any party is a misdemeanor.

Do I need everyone's consent to record with smart glasses in Montana?

Montana does not require consent. It requires knowledge. Under MCA 45-8-213, all parties to a conversation must be aware that a recording is happening. An audible statement that you are recording satisfies this notice requirement. The other party does not need to agree or respond affirmatively. This is different from states like California or Illinois that require active all-party consent.

What happens if I record a conversation secretly with my glasses in Montana?

Secretly recording a conversation with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties violates MCA 45-8-213(1)(c). A first offense is punishable by up to $500 fine and up to 6 months in county jail, or both. The escalating ladder, up to $1,000 and 1 year for a second offense and up to $10,000 and 5 years for a third or subsequent offense, applies specifically to harassment or extortion by electronic communication under MCA 45-8-213(1)(a) and (1)(b), not to repeat hidden-recording offenses under (1)(c) as such. A separate felony tier of up to $25,000 and 5 years applies to a second or subsequent conviction for publishing or threatening to disclose intimate images without consent under (1)(d) and (1)(e).

Can I record police with smart glasses in Montana?

Recording police openly is the safer course. MCA 45-8-213(1)(c) applies to recording with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties. The exception in MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(i) covers public officials and employees when the recording is done in the performance of official duty, which most naturally describes recordings officials make in their work, not recordings a member of the public makes of them. Telling the officer you are recording, and keeping the glasses visible with the recording LED unobstructed, avoids relying on that exception.

Are there places where I can never use smart glasses to record in Montana?

Yes, within two specific prongs. MCA 45-5-223 prohibits purposely or knowingly recording anyone's sexual or intimate body parts in a public place without their knowledge, which reaches a restroom, locker room, or fitting room inside a business open to the public, and separately prohibits surreptitiously observing or recording an occupant of a private dwelling. Neither prong is subject to the notice-or-consent framework of MCA 45-8-213. A medical examination room is not clearly covered by either prong of this specific statute, though recording someone's intimate body parts there without consent still carries civil exposure.

Does the Meta Ray-Ban recording LED help with Montana's notice requirement?

The LED contributes to notice but is not a guaranteed legal substitute for a verbal announcement. Montana's statute targets recording with a 'hidden' device. A visible, illuminated LED is evidence that the device is not hidden. However, not everyone knows what the LED means, and courts have not ruled on whether an LED satisfies Montana's all-parties-knowledge requirement. Combining a visible LED with a verbal announcement is the safest approach.

Does Montana have a biometric privacy law covering facial recognition on smart glasses?

No. As of June 2026, Montana has not enacted a dedicated biometric privacy statute. Smart glasses used with facial-recognition software in Montana are not subject to Montana-specific statutory biometric liability. However, civil tort claims for intrusion upon seclusion can apply, and if the facial recognition software collects data subject to Illinois BIPA or Texas CUBI rules while you are in those states, those laws apply.

Can I wear smart glasses while driving in Montana?

Montana's distracted driving law targets conduct that interferes with safe vehicle operation. Using smart glasses for navigation is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device, which is generally permissible. Using glasses to stream video, conduct social media interactions, or engage in non-driving activities while operating a vehicle creates greater legal and safety risk. Montana law does not specifically address wearable display glasses as of June 2026.