New Jersey
New Jersey 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 New Jersey, and audio recording with them follows a one-party consent rule: if you are a participant in the conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. Video in public is generally lawful. The serious exposure comes from New Jersey's invasion-of-privacy statute, which makes recording intimate conduct without consent a third-degree crime.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in New Jersey?
Yes. New Jersey 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 mere possession creates no legal issue under New Jersey or federal law.
The legal analysis begins when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. In New Jersey, both the federal Wiretap Act and the state's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 through 2A:156A-37) govern audio capture. New Jersey's invasion-of-privacy statute (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9) governs recording in private locations, regardless of consent. These are two distinct legal frameworks, and a smart glasses wearer must satisfy both.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space (including streets, sidewalks, parks, transit stations, and other places generally accessible to the public) is lawful in New Jersey under both state and federal law. When a person is present in public, they have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception; silent video in public does not implicate it.
Smart glasses worn on a city street, in a park, or at a public event generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone, provided the wearer is not recording in a location or in a manner that captures intimate conduct.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis changes meaningfully in semi-public and private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, a workplace office, or a closed meeting room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to the public (such as a restaurant booth during a confidential conversation, a changing area in a retail store, or a gym locker room) can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of what is spoken or done.
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. New Jersey courts apply this same framework when evaluating whether a location or communication is "private" within the meaning of the state's surveillance and privacy statutes.
The video-and-private-place risk under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9
New Jersey's invasion-of-privacy statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9, establishes criminal prohibitions that are independent of the consent rules in the Wiretapping Act. The statute makes it a crime to observe, photograph, or record the "intimate parts" of another person without consent and under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. "Intimate parts" under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1(e) means a person's sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock, or breast, and the definition is not limited by the person's sex.
This prohibition applies to any recording device, including smart glasses worn in locations such as restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, medical examination rooms, hotel rooms, and private residences. The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception. If anything, the concealed form factor is directly relevant to the non-consensual nature of the recording and to the severity of the offense.
Recording Audio and New Jersey's One-Party Consent Rule
The governing statute
New Jersey's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 through 2A:156A-37, is the state's primary wiretap statute. It is modeled closely on the federal Wiretap Act and establishes the same general architecture: a baseline prohibition on unauthorized interception of communications, subject to a participant exception.
The baseline prohibition: N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 makes it a third-degree crime to purposely intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication. The same section also makes it a third-degree crime to purposely disclose or use the contents of an intercepted communication, or evidence derived from it, when you know or have reason to know it was obtained through interception. This is the general prohibition: recording a conversation that you are not a part of, or causing someone else to do so, is a crime under New Jersey law with a criminal penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $15,000.
The one-party consent exception: N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d)
New Jersey resolves the baseline prohibition through the participant exception in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d). That section provides that it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, provided that the communication is not intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal, tortious, or injurious act.
This is the classic one-party consent rule. If you are participating in a conversation, you may record it with smart glasses without notifying or obtaining consent from the other participants. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) contains the same one-party exception as the federal floor, and New Jersey's statute aligns with that floor rather than exceeding it.
New Jersey is a one-party consent state. It is not among the 13 all-party consent states (such as California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington) where recording the audio of a private conversation without all parties' consent is potentially criminal even for a participant.
What the one-party rule does NOT cover
The one-party consent exception applies only when you are a genuine participant in the conversation being recorded. It does not permit:
- Recording a private conversation between two other people in which you are not a participant.
- Leaving glasses on a table or shelf to capture conversations in a room you have exited.
- Recording conversations with the intent to use the recording to commit a criminal, tortious, or injurious act (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) explicitly excludes this from the exception).
The "injurious act" carve-out in New Jersey's statute is worth noting. It is somewhat broader than the federal formulation, which limits the exclusion to criminal or tortious purposes. A smart glasses user who records a conversation as part of a campaign of harassment, blackmail, or another act intended to cause harm could lose the protection of the participant exception even if no separate crime or tort is clearly identifiable.
A person who uses smart glasses to capture a private conversation in which they have no part faces criminal exposure under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 regardless of whether any injurious purpose is present.
For the full New Jersey audio consent framework and statute-by-statute analysis, see the New Jersey Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance
Regardless of consent rules, New Jersey law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 establishes a graduated set of offenses:
Subsection (a): Observing without consent. It is a fourth-degree crime to knowingly observe the intimate parts of another person through any instrumentality, including wearable devices, under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and has not consented to the observation. A fourth-degree crime in New Jersey carries up to 18 months imprisonment and fines up to $10,000.
Subsection (b): Recording without consent. Recording intimate parts without consent is the most directly relevant provision for smart glasses wearers. The statute distinguishes two tiers within subsection (b):
- Recording the exposed intimate parts of a person (sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock, or breast) or recording a person engaged in sexual penetration or sexual contact without consent and in a location where they would not expect to be observed is a third-degree crime: 3 to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $15,000.
- Recording the undergarment-clad intimate parts of another person without consent under those same circumstances (sometimes called "upskirting") is a fourth-degree crime: up to 18 months imprisonment and fines up to $10,000.
Smart glasses worn in proximity to people (on public transit, in crowds, at events) could implicate the fourth-degree undergarment tier even without any exposure of bare skin. The covert form factor of smart glasses is directly relevant to this provision.
Subsection (c): Disclosing the recording. It is separately a third-degree crime to knowingly disclose or distribute a recording obtained in violation of subsection (b). The fine for disclosure is up to $30,000. The act of sharing the recording is an independent crime with its own penalty exposure.
These prohibitions cover restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. The law applies to any device, including smart glasses. The wearable form factor and the familiar appearance of the device do not reduce the criminal grade or create any exception. A conviction for certain N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 offenses may also require sex offender registration under Megan's Law.
Federal law reinforces these prohibitions. 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 there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation.
The rule is absolute: no location in New Jersey, and no argument based on the one-party consent exception, can legalize recording someone's intimate conduct in a space where they reasonably expect privacy.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
New Jersey does not have a standalone 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).
It does regulate biometric data through the New Jersey Data Privacy Act. N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 defines "biometric data" to include facial mapping, facial geometry, and facial templates used to identify a specific individual, and lists biometric data processed to uniquely identify someone as "sensitive data." Ordinary photos and audio or video recordings are excluded unless data is generated from them to identify a specific individual. Under N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.12, a covered controller may not process sensitive data without first obtaining the consumer's consent.
That act is aimed at businesses and app providers, not at an individual wearer. It applies only to controllers that meet its thresholds, such as controlling or processing the personal data of at least 100,000 New Jersey consumers in a year (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.5). Only the Attorney General can enforce it, and it creates no private right of action (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.19).
For an individual wearer, using a smart glasses facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not trigger a private-lawsuit biometric statute in New Jersey the way it would in Illinois, where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent, or in Texas, where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent.
New Jersey residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. The federal Wiretap Act, common-law privacy torts, and New Jersey's own civil liability provisions still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether any state biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself can create that liability without requiring that the footage be published or shared.
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 adds a state-specific civil remedy: any person whose communications are intercepted in violation of the Wiretapping Act may recover the greater of actual damages or $100 per day of violation, but not less than $1,000 total, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
The biometric risk is most acute 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 to identify strangers. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time, retrieving home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. New Jersey users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the information is used for harassment or stalking, potential criminal exposure under New Jersey's stalking and cyber-harassment statutes.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Criminal Grade | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unauthorized interception (non-participant) | N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 | Third-degree crime | 3-5 years / up to $15,000 |
| Observing intimate parts without consent | N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a) | Fourth-degree crime | Up to 18 months / up to $10,000 |
| Recording exposed intimate parts without consent | N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b) | Third-degree crime | 3-5 years / up to $15,000 |
| Recording undergarment-clad intimate parts without consent | N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b) | Fourth-degree crime | Up to 18 months / up to $10,000 |
| Disclosing intimate-image recording | N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(c) | Third-degree crime | 3-5 years / up to $30,000 |
Beyond criminal penalties, victims of unlawful interception may pursue civil remedies under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24: actual damages (minimum $100 per day of violation or $1,000 floor), punitive damages, and attorney fees. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), civil liability can also arise from the act of covert recording itself, without requiring that the footage be shared.
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 unlawful interception.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in New Jersey
Know the one-party rule and its limits. New Jersey's one-party consent exception under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) means you can record conversations you participate in without notifying others. But the exception disappears if you are not an active participant, and it disappears entirely if the recording is intended for any criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose. New Jersey's "injurious act" language is broader than the federal standard; be aware of it.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. New Jersey does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearable devices, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. Covering the LED while recording strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent in any civil or criminal proceeding.
Never record intimate conduct without consent. N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 is strict and escalating: observing is a fourth-degree crime, recording is a third-degree crime, and disclosing the recording is a separately punishable third-degree crime with a $30,000 fine. These offenses can also lead to sex offender registration. The smart glasses form factor provides zero protection from this statute.
Disclose when recording in formal settings. Even though the one-party exception permits undisclosed audio recording of conversations you participate in, verbally announcing at the start of any meeting in a private setting that you are wearing recording glasses eliminates ambiguity about consent and avoids any N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 exposure simultaneously.
Watch the injurious-act exclusion. New Jersey's version of the participant exception adds "injurious act" to the federal "criminal or tortious act" exclusion. Any use of a smart-glasses recording that could be characterized as designed to harm someone, including sharing it in a way that damages reputation or relationships, risks converting an otherwise lawful recording into an unlawful one.
Facial recognition adds risk even without a BIPA-style statute. New Jersey has no BIPA-equivalent private lawsuit, and its Data Privacy Act's biometric consent rule binds covered businesses rather than individual wearers, but common-law intrusion upon seclusion and N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 civil liability still apply. Using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software also exposes you to the laws of states where identified persons reside, particularly Illinois, Texas, or Washington residents who may have BIPA, CUBI, or RCW 19.375 claims.
Driving caution. New Jersey's distracted-driving law (N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3) prohibits using a wireless communication device while operating a motor vehicle. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no New Jersey statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, video calls, or social media interaction while operating a vehicle raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any other electronic-device use and remains legally unsettled.
More New Jersey Laws
- New Jersey Data Privacy Laws
- New Jersey Deepfake Laws
- New Jersey Drone Laws
- New Jersey Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is New Jersey a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
New Jersey is a one-party consent state. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication may record it without notifying the other participants, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious, or injurious act. New Jersey is not among the all-party consent states such as California, Florida, or Pennsylvania.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in New Jersey without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a participant in the conversation. The one-party consent exception in N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) permits a party to record without disclosure. However, you cannot record a conversation you are not part of, and you cannot record with the intent to commit a criminal, tortious, or injurious act. The exception applies only to audio; separate rules under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 govern what you capture visually in private locations.
What is the penalty for illegally recording someone in New Jersey?
Unauthorized interception of a communication by a non-participant is a third-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3: up to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $15,000. Recording intimate parts without consent under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b) is also a third-degree crime (3-5 years, up to $15,000). Disclosing such a recording is a third-degree crime with fines up to $30,000. Civil liability under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 adds a minimum $1,000 damages floor plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in New Jersey?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen. Recording intimate parts of a person without their consent in any location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a third-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b), carrying 3 to 5 years imprisonment. The covert appearance of smart glasses creates no exception.
What is the 'injurious act' exclusion in New Jersey's recording law?
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) limits the one-party consent exception to recordings not made for the purpose of committing any criminal, tortious, or injurious act. The 'injurious act' language is broader than the federal Wiretap Act's formulation, which covers only criminal or tortious purposes. A recording made to harm, harass, or damage someone, even if no specific crime or tort is clearly present, may fall outside the participant exception under New Jersey law.
Does New Jersey have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
Not a standalone one. New Jersey has no biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375 that lets individuals sue. The New Jersey Data Privacy Act (N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 et seq.) treats biometric data used to identify a person as sensitive data that covered businesses may process only with consent, but it applies to controllers that meet its size thresholds rather than individual wearers, and only the Attorney General can enforce it. Common-law privacy torts and N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 civil liability still apply. You may also face liability under the laws of the state where an identified person resides.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in New Jersey?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear. Legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any audio conversation you capture. Recording intimate conduct without consent is a third-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b) regardless of consent rules. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator, but New Jersey law does not mandate its use, and deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert recording intent.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in New Jersey?
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, the one-party consent exception under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) permits audio recording. Video recording in a public space is also generally lawful. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces or capture intimate conduct without consent, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity while recording.
Can I be sued for recording someone with smart glasses in New Jersey even if no crime occurred?
Yes. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), a covert recording that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person can create civil liability regardless of whether any crime occurred or whether the footage was ever shared. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 also provides a civil remedy for any interception that violates the Wiretapping Act, with a minimum $1,000 damages floor, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
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 actually states it.
Clarified that New Jersey's Data Privacy Act regulates biometric data as sensitive data requiring consent, and corrected the description of the state wiretap offense to cover purposeful interception, disclosure, and use.
Corrected the definition of "intimate parts" under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1(e) to match the actual statute (sexual organs, genital area, anal area, inner thigh, groin, buttock, or breast, not limited by sex) and replaced four dead law.cornell.edu citation links with working, content-verified law.justia.com statute pages.
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.
New Jersey Statutes (Unannotated)
§ 2A:156A-3Interception, disclosure, use of wire, electronic, oral communication; violationIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
3. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this act, any person who: a. Purposely intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; or b. Purposely discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or c. Purposely uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree. Subsections b. and c. of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Sugar (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1980, 84 N.J. 1)“…s, or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511 (l)(a); N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3a. The disclosure or use of illegally in…”
- State v. Minter (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1989, 116 N.J. 269)“…orbids anyone to intercept any wire or oral communication, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3, and defines "intercept" as "the aural…”
- Cacciarelli v. Boniface (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1999, 325 N.J. Super. 133)“…w Jersey Wire Taping and Electronics and Surveillance Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 it provides: That any person who a)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2C:14-9Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
1. a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. b. (1) An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 31 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSHUA NICHOLSON (13-12-0773, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2017, 451 N.J. Super. 534)“…He pled guilty to third-degree invasion of privacy under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b) (2004), now renumbered N.J.S.A. 2C:…”
- State of New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2016, 447 N.J. Super. 261)“…tember 19, 2010, with regard to T.C. and M.B., contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a); Count 2, third degre…”
- C.R. v. M. T. (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2024)“…ould believe to be derived from criminal activity. . . .”); N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a) (“An actor commits a crime of the fo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2A:156A-4Lawful interception activities; exceptionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
4. It shall not be unlawful under this act for: a. An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Minter (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1989, 116 N.J. 269)“…direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer." N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(c). In general, the wiretap law forbids…”
- Hornberger v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2002, 351 N.J. Super. 577)“…se the taping violated the Act. We followed the mandate of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), which specifically covers that situ…”
- State v. Franklin (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2003, 175 N.J. 456)“…mself and the victim of his sexual assault in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4 (the Wiretap Act). At the time of the i…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2A:156A-24Civil action for damages, attorney's fee by persons whose communications are intercepted unlawfullyIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
24. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall 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 communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: a. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100.00 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; b. Punitive damages; and c. A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Petillo (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1972, 61 N.J. 165)“…8 , 113 A. 2d 884 (1955); Compare, N. J. S. A. 2A:156A-24. There is some conflict among th…”
- Hornberger v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2002, 351 N.J. Super. 577)“…son who intercepted or disclosed their oral communication. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24. In State v. Diaz, 308 N.J.Super…”
- M.G. v. J.C. (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1991, 254 N.J. Super. 470)“…ney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred." (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24) The facts in this case are not in di…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2C:14-1Definitions.In force
2C:14-1. Definitions. The following definitions apply to this chapter: a. "Actor" means a person accused of an offense proscribed under this act; b. "Victim" means a person alleging to have been subjected to offenses proscribed by this act; c. "Sexual penetration" means vaginal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio or anal intercourse between persons or insertion of the hand, finger or object into the anus or vagina either by the actor or upon the actor's instruction. The depth of insertion shall not be relevant as to the question of commission of the crime; d. "Sexual contact" means an intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim's or actor's intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 145 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Dixon (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1991, 125 N.J. 223)“…he former is proved by showing an unauthorized "touching," N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1d, whereas the latter requires proof of…”
- State ex rel. M.T.S. (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1992, 129 N.J. 422)“…ngless or superfluous). Neither the definitions section of N.J.S.A. 2C:14-1 to -8, nor the remainder of the Code of…”
- State v. G.V. (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2000, 162 N.J. 252)“…tim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor.” N.J.S.A 2C:14-1d. “ ‘Intimate parts’ means ... sexual o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 39:4-97.3Use of wireless telephone, electronic communication device in moving vehicles; definitions; enforcement.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. a. The use of a wireless telephone or electronic communication device by an operator of a moving motor vehicle on a public road or highway shall be unlawful except when the telephone is a hands-free wireless telephone or the electronic communication device is used hands-free, provided that its placement does not interfere with the operation of federally required safety equipment and the operator exercises a high degree of caution in the operation of the motor vehicle. For the purposes of this section, an "electronic communication device" shall not include an amateur radio. Nothing in P.L.2003, c.310 (C.39:4-97.3 et seq.) shall apply to the use of a citizen's band radio or two-way radio by an operator of a moving commercial motor vehicle or authorized emergency vehicle on a public road or highway.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kubert v. Best (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2013, 432 N.J. Super. 495)“…pt in certain specifically-described emergency situations. N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3. 1 An offender is subject to a fine of…”
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MICHELANGELO TROISI (2019-22, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2022)“…ing against him in Princeton Municipal Court for violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3, use of hands-free and hand-held wirel…”
- STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JEFFREY DESIR (008-04-18, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2020)“…A. 39:4-49.1; improper use of a cell phone while driving, N.J.S.A. 39:4-97.3; delaying traffic, N.J.S.A. 39:4-56; i…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 56:8-166.4Definitions.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
1. As used in P.L.2023, c.266 (C.56:8-166.4 et seq.): "Affiliate" means a legal entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another legal entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" means: the ownership of or the power to vote, more than 50 percent of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of a company; the control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors or individuals exercising similar functions; or the power to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of a company. "Biometric data" means data generated by automatic or technological processing, measurements, or analysis of an individual's biological, physical, or behavioral characteristics, including, but not limited to, fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, facial mapping, facial geometry, facial templates, or other unique biological, physical, or behavioral patterns or characteristics that are used or intended to be used, singularly or in combination with each other or with other personal data, to identify a specific individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
§ 56:8-166.12Controller, personal data, responsibilities, security.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
9. a. A controller shall: (1) limit the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary in relation to the purposes for which such data is processed, as disclosed to the consumer; (2) except as otherwise provided in P.L.2023, c.266 (C.56:8-166.4 et seq.), not process personal data for purposes that are neither reasonably necessary to, nor compatible with, the purposes for which such personal data is processed, as disclosed to the consumer, unless the controller obtains the consumer's consent; (3) take reasonable measures to establish, implement, and maintain administrative, technical, and physical data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of personal data and to secure personal data during both storage and use from unauthorized acquisition.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
§ 56:8-166.19Authority, enforcement.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
16. The Office of the Attorney General shall have sole and exclusive authority to enforce a violation of P.L.2023, c.266 (C.56:8-166.4 et seq.). Nothing in P.L.2023, c.266 (C.56:8-166.4 et seq.) shall be construed as providing the basis for, or subject to, a private right of action for violations of P.L.2023, c.266 (C.56:8-166.4 et seq.).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
§ 56:8-166.5Applicability; consumers, personal data, control, processing.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
2. Notwithstanding any State law, rule, regulation, or order to the contrary, the provisions of P.L.2023, c.266 (C.56:8-166.4 et seq.) shall only apply to controllers that conduct business in the State or produce products or services that are targeted to residents of the State, and that during a calendar year either: a. control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 consumers, excluding personal data processed solely for the purpose of completing a payment transaction; or b. control or process the personal data of at least 25,000 consumers and the controller derives revenue, or receives a discount on the price of any goods or services, from the sale of personal data.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
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.
§ 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.
§ 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.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 - New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. General prohibition on willful interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications. Third-degree crime: 3 to 5 years imprisonment and fines up to $15,000.(law.justia.com)
- N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) - Participant exception to consent requirement (one-party consent). A person who is a party to a communication may record it without consent of other parties, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing any criminal, tortious, or injurious act.(law.justia.com)
- N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 - Civil liability for unlawful interception. Victims may recover actual damages (minimum $100 per day of violation or $1,000 floor, whichever is greater), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees.(law.justia.com)
- N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 - Invasion of privacy. Subsection (a): observing intimate parts without consent is a fourth-degree crime (up to 18 months, up to $10,000). Subsection (b): recording exposed intimate parts without consent is a third-degree crime (3-5 years, up to $15,000); recording undergarment-clad intimate parts without consent is a fourth-degree crime (up to 18 months, up to $10,000). Subsection (c): disclosing such a recording is a third-degree crime (up to $30,000 fine).(law.justia.com)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability of at least $10,000 per violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) - Definition of 'oral communication.' An aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 - Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system, Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine and stop recording if asked, and Meta's instruction to obey applicable law.(meta.com)
- N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.4 - New Jersey Data Privacy Act definitions, including 'biometric data' and 'sensitive data' (biometric data processed to uniquely identify an individual).(lis.njleg.state.nj.us)
- N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.12 - Controller duties, including no processing of sensitive data without the consumer's consent.(lis.njleg.state.nj.us)
- N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.5 - Applicability thresholds of the New Jersey Data Privacy Act (100,000 consumers, or 25,000 with revenue from sale of personal data).(lis.njleg.state.nj.us)
- N.J.S.A. 56:8-166.19 - Attorney General has sole enforcement authority; no private right of action under the New Jersey Data Privacy Act.(lis.njleg.state.nj.us)