Nebraska
Nebraska Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Nebraska, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290, you may record any conversation you are a participant in without notifying the other parties, provided the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Recording in private spaces where people expect visual privacy is a separate criminal offense regardless of consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Nebraska?
Yes. Nebraska has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under Nebraska or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, your role in any conversation being captured, and the purpose of the recording.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Nebraska under both state and federal law. When a person is in public (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, or in any location generally accessible to the public), they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger the federal statute. Nebraska law tracks this same principle: the prohibition on interception under § 86-290 targets the capture of the spoken word, not mere visual recording in open public spaces.
Smart glasses worn at an outdoor event, on a public sidewalk, in a retail store, or in a public government building generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, or a closed meeting room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a workplace break room or a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan's concurrence described a twofold requirement for a protected expectation of privacy: the person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Nebraska courts apply this same framework when evaluating whether a location or conversation is "private" within the meaning of the state's surveillance and voyeurism statutes.
Recording in private places
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08 separately criminalizes knowingly intruding upon any person in a place of solitude or seclusion without their consent, as well as photographing or recording intimate areas without consent. Using smart glasses to secretly capture video inside a private home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private place squarely implicates this statute.
Recording Audio and Nebraska's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Nebraska.
The statute: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 is Nebraska's core electronic surveillance law. It makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, electronic, or oral communications, to use or disclose intercepted communications, or to use interception devices for the purpose of capturing private communications. The statute mirrors the structure of the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522) and applies throughout Nebraska regardless of whether the communication crosses state lines.
The one-party consent exception in § 86-290 follows the federal model at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d): interception is not unlawful when a party to the communication consents to it, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. In practice, this means a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation may lawfully record that conversation in Nebraska without disclosing the recording to the other participants.
What one-party consent means in practice
For a smart glasses wearer in Nebraska, the one-party consent rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone (at work, at home, over the phone, or in a restaurant) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required.
- Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in is unlawful interception under § 86-290.
- Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.
The exception applies only to genuine participation. A person cannot position smart glasses to capture a nearby private conversation between others and claim one-party consent; that person is not a party to the communication. That conduct is unlawful interception and a Class IV felony.
Criminal and tortious purpose bar
Nebraska's one-party exception does not protect recordings made to further a criminal or tortious act. A wearer who records a conversation for the purpose of blackmail, extortion, harassment, or any other criminal scheme loses the protection of the one-party rule even though they are a participant in the conversation. The same is true if the purpose is to commit a tortious act against another person, such as defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The purpose of the recording, not just the act of recording, determines legality.
Federal layer
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) applies in parallel and also follows a one-party consent model at § 2511(2)(d). Because Nebraska's rule matches the federal baseline, there is no gap between state and federal law for Nebraska recordings: both permit one-party recordings of conversations the recorder participates in, for lawful purposes. Nebraska smart glasses users do not need to apply a more restrictive state rule than the federal default.
For a complete analysis of Nebraska's consent framework, see the Nebraska Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Intrusion
Regardless of consent rules, Nebraska law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08: Unlawful Intrusion
Section 28-311.08 creates two distinct offenses relevant to smart glasses users.
First, the unlawful-intrusion prohibition (subsection 1) makes it unlawful to knowingly intrude upon any other person without their consent in a "place of solitude or seclusion." The statute defines this term to include facilities used as a restroom, tanning booth, locker room, shower room, fitting room, or dressing room. A first violation is a Class I misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation escalates to a Class IV felony.
Second, the recording prohibition (subsection 2) independently makes it a Class IV felony to knowingly photograph or record a person's intimate areas without consent, regardless of whether the recording occurs in a public or private location. "Intimate area" means naked or undergarment-clad genitalia, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast. This offense is a Class IV felony on the first occurrence.
No location exception
The rule under § 28-311.08(2) is notable because it is not limited to private spaces. Recording a person's intimate areas without consent is a Class IV felony even in public if the person has not consented to having those specific areas recorded. A person who briefly changes clothes at a public beach or pulls down a garment in a dressing area at a park has a reasonable expectation that their intimate areas are not being captured. Smart glasses wearers must never direct recording at another person's intimate areas in any context without explicit consent.
Non-consensual image distribution
Section 28-311.08 also separately criminalizes distributing intimate images without consent. Sharing footage recorded in violation of subsection 2 is a Class IIA felony for first or second offenses and a Class II felony for third or subsequent violations. Class II felonies in Nebraska carry 1 to 50 years imprisonment. A smart glasses wearer who records intimate areas without consent and then shares or posts that footage compounds a Class IV felony (recording) with a Class IIA or II felony (distribution).
Federal floor
Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Nebraska's § 28-311.08 extends this protection to all locations in the state, not just federal property.
The rule is absolute. No Nebraska location, and no consent from any third party other than the person being recorded, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas without their knowledge and agreement.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Nebraska does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).
Nebraska enacted the Nebraska Data Privacy Act (NDPA), which took effect January 1, 2025. The NDPA covers sensitive personal data including biometric data used to uniquely identify a person. However, the NDPA is a consumer-rights framework rather than an Illinois-style biometric statute. It does not impose per-person statutory damages for each unauthorized facial-geometry scan the way BIPA does. Enforcement rests with the Nebraska Attorney General; there is no private right of action under the NDPA.
Under Nebraska state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not expose a person to the direct statutory-damages risk that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the AG-enforcement civil penalty that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI). That said, Nebraska residents are not without recourse. Common-law privacy torts, particularly intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, apply regardless of any statute. An intentional intrusion upon someone's solitude or private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion.
The practical risk is greatest through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party facial-recognition application. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Nebraska users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under Nebraska's stalking and harassment statutes.
If a Nebraska smart glasses user captures the face of an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition in Nebraska.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Penalty Range |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of oral communication | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 | Class IV felony | 0-2 years imprisonment; up to $10,000 fine |
| Unlawful intrusion (first offense) | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(1) | Class I misdemeanor | Up to 1 year imprisonment; up to $1,000 fine |
| Unlawful intrusion (subsequent offense) | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(1) | Class IV felony | 0-2 years imprisonment; up to $10,000 fine |
| Recording intimate areas without consent | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(2) | Class IV felony | 0-2 years imprisonment; up to $10,000 fine |
| Distributing recorded intimate images (1st/2nd) | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(3) | Class IIA felony | 0-20 years imprisonment |
| Distributing recorded intimate images (3rd+) | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(3) | Class II felony | 1-50 years imprisonment |
Civil remedies under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297 are independent of criminal prosecution. Under § 86-297(3)(b), the court may assess as damages the greater of (1) the plaintiff's actual damages plus any profits the violator made from the violation, or (2) statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000. A plaintiff may also recover reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. The statute of limitations is two years from the date the plaintiff first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages for each unlawful interception under 18 U.S.C. § 2520.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Nebraska
Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Nebraska's one-party consent rule protects only genuine participants in a conversation. If the other person is addressing you directly and you are exchanging words with them, you are a participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby private conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the exception and face Class IV felony exposure under § 86-290.
Keep the purpose of any recording lawful. Nebraska's one-party exception does not protect recordings made for criminal or tortious purposes. A recording made to harass, blackmail, extort, or harm another person falls outside the consent exception even if the wearer is technically a participant in the conversation. The lawful purpose requirement applies from the moment recording begins.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Nebraska law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring, which strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent if a dispute arises.
Disclose before sensitive meetings. Nebraska law does not require you to disclose recordings of conversations you are part of, but disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting (a job interview, a medical appointment, a legal consultation) eliminates any ambiguity about consent, avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure entirely, and protects the admissibility of the recording if you later need to use it.
Never record in private spaces or capture intimate areas. The prohibition under § 28-311.08 on recording intimate areas is not limited to private locations. It applies anywhere the person being recorded has not consented to that specific capture. Remove the glasses or ensure the camera is not directed at intimate areas in any context where consent has not been given. The penalty on the first offense is already a Class IV felony.
Watch for cross-border calls. Nebraska's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in Nebraska. When either party to a call is in an all-party consent state (such as Illinois, which has a nearby presence in multistate businesses and interstate calls), the stricter law of the other state may govern the recording. Illinois's all-party consent requirement under 720 ILCS 5/14-2 would apply if the other party is located in Illinois. When in doubt, disclose the recording or confirm the other party's location before relying on Nebraska's one-party rule.
Biometric caution with commercial deployments. Nebraska's NDPA covers biometric data broadly, but the real exposure for commercial facial-recognition use is in other states' laws that may follow Nebraska residents who travel or in suits brought under Illinois BIPA when the subjects scanned are Illinois residents. Any commercial application pairing smart glasses with facial-recognition software should include legal review of each state where the scanning occurs.
More Nebraska Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Nebraska a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Nebraska is a one-party consent state under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290. If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. The consent exception does not apply if the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Nebraska without telling the other person?
Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 permits a party to the communication to record it without the knowledge of the other participants. You may not use this exception to record conversations you are not part of, and the purpose of the recording must not be criminal or tortious.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Nebraska?
Unlawfully intercepting an oral communication under § 86-290 is a Class IV felony in Nebraska. Under § 86-297, a court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees. The federal Wiretap Act adds up to 5 years imprisonment and at least $10,000 in civil statutory damages for unlawful interceptions.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Nebraska?
In public spaces, video-only recording that does not capture intimate areas is generally lawful. Recording intimate areas without consent anywhere is a Class IV felony under § 28-311.08(2). Intruding in a restroom, locker room, changing room, or other place of solitude or seclusion is a Class I misdemeanor on the first offense and a Class IV felony on subsequent offenses. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception.
Does Nebraska have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?
Nebraska's Data Privacy Act (NDPA), effective January 1, 2025, covers sensitive data including biometric identifiers but is enforced exclusively by the Attorney General with no private right of action. Nebraska does not have a BIPA-style per-person statutory damages regime. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Nebraska does not carry the same direct $1,000 to $5,000 per-person exposure that exists in Illinois, but common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts still apply.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in Nebraska?
The device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and your role in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator. Nebraska law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent if a dispute arises.
What happens if I record someone in Nebraska who is in Illinois?
Illinois is an all-party consent state under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. When a call or conversation includes a participant located in Illinois, Illinois's stricter rule may govern the recording. Nebraska's one-party consent does not insulate you from Illinois law if the other party is in Illinois. When a cross-border call involves any all-party-consent state, disclosing the recording is the safest approach.
Can I record police officers with smart glasses in Nebraska?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter, Nebraska's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording. Nebraska courts apply Katz-based reasonable expectation of privacy analysis to determine what constitutes a private communication. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces or capture intimate areas, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.
What is Nebraska's unlawful intrusion law for smart glasses?
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08 prohibits knowingly intruding upon a person in a place of solitude or seclusion (restrooms, locker rooms, shower rooms, fitting rooms, tanning booths) without their consent. A first offense is a Class I misdemeanor; a subsequent offense is a Class IV felony. Recording intimate areas without consent in any location is separately a Class IV felony under the same statute.
Updates
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part expectation-of-privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurrence, where the opinion states it.
Corrected the description of civil damages under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297 to reflect that a court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages of $100 a day or $10,000.
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.
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 86: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
§ 86-290Unlawful acts; penaltyIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 86-271 to 86-295, it is unlawful to: (a) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (b) Intentionally use, endeavor to use, or procure 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; (c) Intentionally disclose or endeavor 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 subsection; (d) Intentionally use or endeavor to use 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,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hays v. Hays (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2022)“…to her. We address these arguments, in turn. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) (Reissue 2016), “it is not unlawf…”
- Ades v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (District Court, C.D. California 2014, 46 F. Supp. 3d 999)“…f the carrier or provider of such communication services.”' Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-290(2)(a). Based on this provision, Omni co…”
- Lewton Ex Rel. Lewton v. Divingnzzo (District Court, D. Nebraska 2011, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1046)“…7) to exclude the recordings as illegally intercepted under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-290(a) (see Doc. 137-16 at p.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Nebraska Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Nebraska Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy Rights (2026)
§ 86-297Interception; civil actionIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-295 and 86-298 to 86-2,103 may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. (2) In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes: (a) Such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (b) Damages under subsection (3) of this section; and (c) Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (3)(a) In an action under this section, if the conduct in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-295 and 86-298 to 86-2,103 is the private viewing of a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or if the communication is a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated for remote pickup broadcast stations under subpart D of 47 C.F.R.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brumbaugh v. Bendorf (Nebraska Supreme Court 2020, 945 N.W.2d 116)“…warded under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (2018) or Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297 (Reissue 2014) is addressed to the tria…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Nebraska Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026), Nebraska Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 28: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 28-311.08Unlawful intrusion; photograph, film, or record image or video of intimate area; distribute or make public; penalty; court; duties; registration under Sex Offender Registration Act; statute of limitationsIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly intrude upon any other person without his or her consent in a place of solitude or seclusion. Violation of this subsection is a Class I misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection is a Class IV felony. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally photograph, film, or otherwise record an image or video of the intimate area of any other person without his or her knowledge and consent when his or her intimate area would not be generally visible to the public regardless of whether such other person is located in a public or private place. Violation of this subsection is a Class IV felony. (3) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally distribute or otherwise make public an image or video of another person recorded in violation of subsection (2) of this section without that person's consent. A first or second violation of this subsection is a Class IIA felony. A third or subsequent violation of this subsection is a Class II felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. McGovern (Nebraska Supreme Court 2022, 311 Neb. 705)“…62 See Riley v. California, supra note 5. 63 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08 (Reissue 2016 & Cum. Supp. 2020).…”
- State v. Zitterkopf (Nebraska Supreme Court 2024, 317 Neb. 312)“…unlawful distribution of an intimate image in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08(3) (Cum. Supp. 2022). Zitterkopf claims…”
- In Re Interest of Dustin S. (Nebraska Supreme Court 2008, 276 Neb. 635)“…le undressing would constitute a Class II misdemeanor under Neb. Rev.Stat. § 28-311.08 (Cum.Supp.2006). Therefore, Dustin is a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Nebraska Public Recording Laws: Filming in Public Spaces and Government Meetings (2026), Nebraska Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and HOAs (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
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
§ 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, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 63 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Security Camera Laws: BIPA, Audio Rules, and Placement (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290 (Unlawful acts; penalty). Establishes Nebraska's prohibition on intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications and the one-party consent exception. Unlawful interception is a Class IV felony.(nebraskalegislature.gov)
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297 (Civil action for unlawful interception). Plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages or $10,000 in statutory damages per violation, plus reasonable attorney fees. Two-year statute of limitations from discovery.(nebraskalegislature.gov)
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.08 (Unlawful intrusion; photograph, film, or record intimate area; distribute; penalty). Class I misdemeanor (first intrusion), Class IV felony (subsequent intrusion or first recording offense), Class IIA felony (first/second distribution), Class II felony (third+ distribution).(nebraskalegislature.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) (Definition of oral communication as an aural transfer). Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act). Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's user guidance.(meta.com)