New York
New York 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 York, and the state's one-party consent rule means you can record audio of any conversation you are participating in without notifying the other party. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful. The legal lines are drawn at covert recording in private spaces and at using the glasses to capture intimate areas without consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in New York?
Yes. New York has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under New York or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. At that point, the relevant questions are: What is being captured? Where is the recording taking place? Are you a party to any conversation being recorded?
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in New York under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location such as a sidewalk, park, transit platform, retail store, or government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.
The federal Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as an aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy against interception ((2), (18)). Silent video capture in a public space does not meet that definition. New York's eavesdropping statutes similarly focus on the interception of spoken communications, not video observation in public.
This means smart glasses worn while walking through Midtown Manhattan, at a farmers market in upstate New York, at a sporting event, or inside a publicly accessible government building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis shifts in semi-public or private spaces. A private home, hotel room, medical examination room, or closed-door office carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even technically accessible spaces such as a quiet restaurant booth, a workplace break room, or a one-on-one conversation in a cafe can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of words spoken there.
Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the constitutional framework asks whether the person had a subjective expectation of privacy and whether society recognizes that expectation as objectively reasonable. New York courts apply this framework when determining whether a space or conversation is "private" for purposes of the eavesdropping and unlawful-surveillance statutes.
Recording inside private places
Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside a private location such as a home, hotel room, or medical office can violate New York's unlawful surveillance statute (Penal Law § 250.45) even before the eavesdropping provisions become relevant. Covert video recording in a space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation is a serious Class E felony, not a technical compliance question.
Recording Audio and New York's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the central legal issue for smart glasses users in New York, and the state's framework is well-settled.
The statute
New York's eavesdropping provision is codified at N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05. The crime of eavesdropping is committed when a person "unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication." Eavesdropping is a Class E felony.
The definitions that make § 250.05 a one-party consent rule appear at N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00:
Wiretapping is defined as the "intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver." Because the definition requires the absence of consent from both the sender AND the receiver, a sender or receiver who is a party to the call can lawfully record it. This is the one-party rule for telephone and electronic communications.
Mechanical overhearing of a conversation is defined as the "intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat." The key phrase is "by a person not present thereat": the statute only reaches someone who is not present at the conversation. A participant who is physically present and recording their own conversation does not fall within this definition at all. This is the one-party rule for in-person conversations.
Unlawfully means acting without specific authorization under the criminal procedure law. Consent from a party to the communication is the civilian authorization that takes the conduct outside the statute.
What one-party consent means for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in New York, the one-party rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a coffee shop, in a business meeting, during a job interview, or in a personal exchange is lawful. You are a participant and a party present at the conversation. N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00 does not reach you.
- Recording your own interactions with police officers during a public encounter is lawful under the same principle. You are a party to the exchange.
- Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party. Secretly capturing someone else's discussion when you are not present or participating violates § 250.05.
Federal alignment
The federal Wiretap Act ((2)(d)) provides the same one-party consent baseline federally. New York's rule is consistent with the federal minimum: a New York participant can record their own conversations lawfully under both state and federal law.
For a full analysis of New York's consent framework, see the New York Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Unlawful Surveillance and Voyeurism
Regardless of the consent rules, New York law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct. One-party consent does not override these prohibitions.
N.Y. Penal Law § 250.45: Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree (Stephanie's Law)
Enacted in 2003 as "Stephanie's Law" after a New York City tenant discovered a hidden camera in her apartment, N.Y. Penal Law § 250.45 prohibits five categories of covert imaging:
Using or installing an imaging device to secretly record a person dressing, undressing, or exposing intimate body parts "at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent" for purposes of amusement, entertainment, profit, sexual gratification, or to degrade or abuse the person.
Secretly recording under another person's clothing to capture intimate body parts (upskirt photography or recording) without knowledge or consent.
Installing imaging devices in hotel or motel rooms, bathrooms, changing rooms, showers, or guest bedrooms without legitimate purpose. The law creates a rebuttable presumption that such installation lacks legitimate purpose.
Secretly recording a person engaged in sexual conduct or capturing intimate body parts in a manner allowing identification, at a place and time when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without consent, for the purposes listed above.
Unlawful surveillance in the second degree is a Class E felony, carrying up to four years in prison.
Smart glasses fall directly within the term "imaging device" as used in § 250.45. The covert nature of smart glasses recording (the glasses appear to be ordinary eyewear) does not create any exception. It can in fact aggravate the offense by demonstrating deliberate concealment.
Locations where recording is always prohibited
The locations where § 250.45 and common-sense privacy expectations most clearly apply include:
- Restrooms and public bathrooms
- Locker rooms and gym changing areas
- Fitting rooms in retail stores
- Private residences
- Hotel rooms and other temporary private lodgings
- Medical examination and treatment rooms
The rule is absolute. No consent from any third party and no claim of legitimate purpose can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect not to be observed.
Federal law adds a parallel floor: , the 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.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in New York
New York does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). However, the absence of a dedicated state statute does not mean smart glasses facial recognition is consequence-free.
New York City bias law
New York City Local Law 144 of 2021 (effective July 5, 2023) requires employers and employment agencies that use automated employment decision tools, which may include AI-assisted analysis of interview video, to conduct independent bias audits and notify applicants of the tool's use. This is not a standalone biometric statute, but it reflects New York's growing regulatory posture toward AI-driven analysis of individuals. Smart glasses used in an employment context to capture and analyze biometric features of job applicants would intersect with this framework.
Common-law civil liability
New York recognizes invasion of privacy as a civil cause of action. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, a person who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another is liable for invasion of privacy if the intrusion would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." The intrusion itself creates liability; there is no requirement that the recording be published or shared.
Smart glasses used to covertly scan and identify individuals, particularly in semi-private contexts such as a workplace or social gathering, can satisfy both elements of intrusion upon seclusion: intentional intrusion and conduct that is objectively offensive to a reasonable person.
The I-XRAY demonstration
In October 2024, Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio demonstrated "I-XRAY": a system integrating Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses with PimEyes, a reverse facial-recognition search engine, and AI to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. The project was not released publicly, but it proved the feasibility of passive, covert biometric identification via consumer smart glasses. The demonstration used third-party software; Meta's glasses provided the camera only.
A New York user who replicates this type of integration faces common-law tort liability for intrusion upon seclusion regardless of the absence of a New York biometric statute. If the person scanned resides in Illinois, they are also immediately subject to BIPA liability, which carries statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person for capturing face geometry without written consent.
The three dedicated biometric states
Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), Texas (CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375) are the three states with dedicated biometric laws most relevant to smart-glasses facial recognition. If you use your New York smart glasses while traveling to Illinois, BIPA applies immediately. Illinois BIPA is the highest-exposure statute: it grants a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation or $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation, plus attorney fees.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping (non-participant wiretap) | N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 | Class E felony | Up to 4 years imprisonment |
| Eavesdropping (mechanical overhearing) | N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 | Class E felony | Up to 4 years imprisonment |
| Unlawful surveillance, 2nd degree | N.Y. Penal Law § 250.45 | Class E felony | Up to 4 years imprisonment |
| Federal Wiretap Act violation | Federal crime | Up to 5 years imprisonment | |
| Federal Wiretap Act (civil) | Civil action | At least $10,000 statutory damages |
New York's eavesdropping and unlawful surveillance offenses are both classified as Class E felonies. That is a notably more serious classification than the misdemeanor treatment many one-party states apply to wiretap violations. A conviction carries collateral consequences beyond prison time, including a permanent felony record that can affect employment, professional licensing, and housing.
New York also recognizes a civil cause of action for unlawful wiretapping and invasion of privacy under both state statutory and common-law tort theories.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in New York
You can record your own conversations. New York's one-party rule means that as long as you are a genuine participant in the conversation, physically present and part of the exchange, you may record it without disclosing that you are doing so. You do not need the other person's agreement.
Keep the capture LED visible. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. New York law does not currently mandate a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering or obscuring the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. Evidence that the LED was covered can be used to establish covert recording intent in any criminal or civil proceeding.
Understand the felony stakes. Unlike many one-party states where unlawful recording is a misdemeanor, New York treats eavesdropping as a Class E felony. A violation arising from recording someone else's private conversation without consent is a felony charge with up to four years in prison, even for a first offense. This raises the stakes considerably compared to peer states.
Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though New York law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting such as a business negotiation, employment interview, or medical appointment eliminates any ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.
Never record in private spaces. The prohibitions under Penal Law § 250.45 on recording in private locations are absolute. Remove the glasses or stop recording before entering locker rooms, restrooms, fitting rooms, or any space where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation.
Do not record others' conversations. New York's one-party rule protects participants who are physically present, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you and you are not present at it, you cannot lawfully record it without at least one party's consent.
Facial recognition adds civil risk. New York has no standalone biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through a facial-recognition application exposes you to common-law tort liability for intrusion upon seclusion. If the person identified is located in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you may face additional liability under those states' dedicated biometric statutes.
Driving. No New York statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearing smart glasses while driving. New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1225-d prohibits the use of portable electronic devices while driving, but wearable glasses used passively for navigation are not clearly a "portable electronic device" under that provision. Active use of smart glasses for video streaming, social media interaction, or recording while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device and remains legally unsettled under current New York law.
More New York Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is New York a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
New York is a one-party consent state. Under N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00 and § 250.05, a participant physically present at a conversation may record it without notifying the other party. The eavesdropping statute only reaches persons who are not present at the conversation being recorded. Recording a conversation you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in New York without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation and physically present. New York's one-party consent rule means you do not need to disclose the recording or obtain the other person's agreement. The only condition is that you are actually participating in the conversation being recorded.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in New York?
Eavesdropping under N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 is a Class E felony carrying up to four years in prison. Unlawful surveillance under § 250.45 (Stephanie's Law) is also a Class E felony with the same maximum. New York is unusual among one-party states in treating wiretap violations as felonies rather than misdemeanors. Federal Wiretap Act violations add up to five years imprisonment and at least $10,000 in civil statutory damages.
What is Stephanie's Law and does it apply to smart glasses?
Stephanie's Law (N.Y. Penal Law § 250.45) prohibits covert recording of a person's intimate body parts or conduct in locations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, including restrooms, locker rooms, hotel rooms, and private residences. Smart glasses are an imaging device under the statute. Recording in those locations with smart glasses, or using them to record upskirt footage, is a Class E felony regardless of consent.
Can I secretly film someone with my smart glasses in New York?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being seen. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and private residences, covert recording of intimate body parts or conduct is a Class E felony under N.Y. Penal Law § 250.45 (Stephanie's Law).
Does New York have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
New York does not have a standalone biometric statute like Illinois BIPA or Texas CUBI. However, using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify individuals can trigger common-law liability for intrusion upon seclusion. New York City Local Law 144 regulates AI-driven employment decision tools. If you use New York smart glasses in Illinois, BIPA applies immediately with per-scan statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in New York?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in New York. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides external notice of recording, and deliberately covering it can be used as evidence of covert recording intent in a dispute.
Can I record a police officer with my smart glasses in New York?
Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter such as a traffic stop or public interaction, New York's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording without disclosure. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity while recording.
Does covering the recording LED on my smart glasses create legal problems in New York?
Covering the LED is not itself a New York crime under current law, but it removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. In any criminal or civil proceeding over covert recording, evidence that you deliberately covered the indicator light can be used to establish non-consensual recording intent and to support felony eavesdropping or unlawful surveillance charges.
Updates
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 York Penal Law
§ 250.00Eavesdropping; definitions of termsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Eavesdropping; definitions of terms. The following definitions are applicable to this article: 1. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs or necessary to protect the rights or property of said corporation shall not be deemed "wiretapping." 2. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 56 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases:
- People v. Fata (New York County Courts 1988, 139 Misc. 2d 979)“…Fata had a justifiable expectation of privacy; and (c) that Penal Law § 250.00 et seq. prohibit the mechanical overh…”
- The People v. Anthony Badalamenti (New York Court of Appeals 2016, 27 N.Y.3d 423)“…t of “mechanical overhearing of a conversation” pursuant to Penal Law § 250.00 (2), includes vicarious consent, on beh…”
- Gurevich v. Gurevich (New York Supreme Court 2009, 24 Misc. 3d 808)“…11 ing” as they relate to Penal Law § 250.05 are defined in Penal Law § 250.00 (6) as: “the intentional acquiring, r…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, New York Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, New York Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners
§ 250.05EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
Eavesdropping. A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication. Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 39 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New York courts recognize a vicarious consent exception to the eavesdropping offense. The Appellate Term adopted it in People v. Clark (2008). The Court of Appeals then held in People v. Badalamenti (2016) that consent covers a parent with a good faith, objectively reasonable belief that recording serves the child's best interests.
Leading cases:
- The People v. Anthony Badalamenti (New York Court of Appeals 2016, 27 N.Y.3d 423)✓A father's call to the mother's phone connected with no one speaking, and he recorded her boyfriend threatening to beat his five year old son; the court held that consent under Penal Law 250.05 includes a parent's vicarious consent, so the recording was admissible.
- People v. Badalamenti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2015, 124 A.D.3d 672)✓Reviewing the same recording of a boyfriend threatening the father's young son, the Appellate Division adopted a vicarious consent exemption to Penal Law 250.05 where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe recording serves the child's welfare.
- People v. Clark (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2008, 19 Misc. 3d 6)✓A mother slipped an audio recorder into the backpack of her nonverbal autistic eight year old before he boarded the school bus, capturing his bus matron; the Appellate Term held she could vicariously consent for him, so the recording did not violate Penal Law 250.05.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), New York Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, New York Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 250.45Unlawful surveillance in the second degreeIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
Unlawful surveillance in the second degree. A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when: 1. For his or her own, or another person's amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or 2. For his or her own, or another person's sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 51 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):People v. Piznarski (2013) held Penal Law 250.45 reaches a participant who secretly records consensual sex, that the victim kept a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the one-party consent rule for eavesdropping does not apply. People v. Evans (2006) applied section 250.45(3) to a camera hidden in a bedroom.
Leading cases:
- People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2006, 27 A.D.3d 905)✓A man placed a video camera in his girlfriend's 12-year-old daughter's bedroom and recorded her undressing, then pleaded guilty under Section 250.45(3); the court affirmed, holding the plea needed no express admission of no legitimate purpose given the statutory presumption.
- People v. Lema (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2017, 152 A.D.3d 440)✓A man used a phone camera to record under women's skirts on a subway train, but dark lighting produced no image of intimate parts; the court affirmed, holding Section 250.45(4) is satisfied when a device is used for the purpose of making such a recording.
- People v. Piznarski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2013, 113 A.D.3d 166)✓A student secretly recorded sex with two women using a camera left in view on his bedroom desk; the court affirmed under Section 250.45, holding the statute reaches a participant who records a consensual encounter and that a visible camera can still be used surreptitiously.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy, New York Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules, New York School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights
§ 70.00Sentence of imprisonment for felonyIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
Sentence of imprisonment for felony. * 1. Indeterminate sentence. Except as provided in subdivisions four, five and six of this section or section 70.80 of this article, a sentence of imprisonment for a felony, other than a felony defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of this chapter, shall be an indeterminate sentence. When such a sentence is imposed, the court shall impose a maximum term in accordance with the provisions of subdivision two of this section and the minimum period of imprisonment shall be as provided in subdivision three of this section. * NB Effective until September 1, 2027 * 1. Indeterminate sentence. Except as provided in subdivisions four and five of this section or section 70.80 of this article, a sentence of imprisonment for a felony, other than a felony defined in article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of this chapter, shall be an indeterminate sentence. When such a sentence is imposed, the court shall impose a maximum term in accordance with the provisions of subdivision two of this section and the minimum period of imprisonment shall be as provided in subdivision three of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 760 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases:
- People v. Taylor (New York Court of Appeals 2007, 9 N.Y.3d 129)“…automatically results in a sentence of life without parole (Penal Law § 70.00 [3] [a] [i]; §§ 60.06, 70.00 [5]). [4]…”
- People v. Sparber (New York Court of Appeals 2008, 10 N.Y.3d 457)“…nsequence of his plea and status as a second violent felon, Penal Law § 70.00 (6) and § 70.45 (1) and (2) required de…”
- People v. Rivera (New York Court of Appeals 2005, 5 N.Y.3d 61)“…hich carries a maximum sentence of four years imprisonment (Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [e]). The People moved for a persis…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: First, Second, and Third Degree Murder: Key Differences, Manslaughter Degrees Explained: First, Second, and Third
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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: New York Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits, New York Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections, South Dakota Voyeurism Laws
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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).
Leading cases:
- 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: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 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 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05 (Eavesdropping). Class E felony.(nysenate.gov)
- N.Y. Penal Law § 250.00 (Definitions: wiretapping, mechanical overhearing, unlawfully).(nysenate.gov)
- N.Y. Penal Law § 250.45 (Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree, Stephanie's Law). Class E felony.(nysenate.gov)
- N.Y. Penal Law § 70.00 (Sentence of imprisonment for felony: Class E, up to 4 years).(nysenate.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). Up to 5 years imprisonment; civil damages at least $10,000.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2), (18): oral communication and aural transfer definitions. Basis for video-only public recording being outside the Wiretap Act.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act). Federal floor for private-space recording.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Capture LED documentation and guidance.(meta.com)