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 the federal constitutional framework established in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which holds that a reasonable expectation of privacy must be both subjectively held and objectively recognized by society. In open public spaces, neither prong is typically satisfied for mere visual observation.

Smart glasses used to capture video footage of public 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 in official capacity. Recording a police officer making a traffic stop, a government employee performing official duties, or another public official in their official role does not require announcing the recording. The official's performance of government functions in public carries a reduced expectation of privacy.

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.

Parties given advance warning. If the other party has already been told that recordings may occur in a particular setting, for example in a workplace where recording policies are posted, the individual knowledge-at-the-moment-of-recording requirement is satisfied by the prior general notice.

Emergency health and government communications. Narrow exceptions apply for health care facilities and government agencies recording emergency communications.

These exceptions are meaningful for smart glasses users who regularly interact with government officials, attend public events, or work in settings with posted recording policies. In those contexts, recording with your glasses without a verbal announcement at each interaction is likely lawful.

What "Private Conversation" Means

The Montana statute reaches conversations that participants expect to be private. A loud exchange in a crowded public square is not a private conversation. 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 all contexts where participants would reasonably expect their words are not being captured by a wearable device.

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

Separate from the audio consent rule, MCA 45-5-223 prohibits surreptitious visual observation or recording in any context where a person has a reasonable expectation of bodily privacy.

The statute covers two categories of conduct. First, it prohibits hiding, waiting, or loitering near a private dwelling 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.

Locations where smart glasses recording is absolutely prohibited under MCA 45-5-223 include:

• Restrooms and bathrooms in any venue
• Locker rooms, gym changing areas, and fitness center shower areas
• Retail fitting rooms and changing rooms
• Private residences and hotel rooms where occupants have not consented
• Medical examination rooms and clinical settings

The prohibition in these locations is not subject to the notice-or-consent framework of MCA 45-8-213. No announcement, no posted policy, and no claimed consent makes recording in a restroom or locker room lawful. The law protects the absolute privacy of bodily exposure in those spaces. Smart glasses are treated identically to any other recording device under this statute. The fact that they look like ordinary eyewear, and thus may be less noticeable than a camera, does not create a legal exception. If anything, using a device that conceals its recording function in these locations 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 in jail. A third or subsequent conviction is punishable by up to $10,000 fine or up to 5 years in state prison, 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.

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 is strict. Restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and similar spaces are categorically off-limits for recording regardless of the notice framework under MCA 45-8-213.

Recording public officials in their official capacity is lawful without announcement. If you are recording a police encounter, a public meeting, or a government official performing official duties, MCA 45-8-213's exception applies. You do not need to announce the 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.

Sources