Ohio
Ohio Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide
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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Ohio, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4), you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants, provided the audio capture is not made for a criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose. Secretly recording someone's private areas in places where people expect visual privacy is a separate criminal offense regardless of consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Ohio?
Yes. Ohio has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under Ohio or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, your role in any conversation being captured, and the purpose of the recording.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Ohio under both state and federal law. When a person is in public (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, or in any location generally accessible to the public), they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act defines "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger that statute. Ohio law tracks this same principle.
Smart glasses worn in a park, on a public sidewalk, at an outdoor festival, or in a retail store generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, or a closed meeting room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a workplace break room during a quiet one-on-one conversation or a restaurant booth during a personal discussion, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan's concurring opinion described a twofold requirement: a person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Recording in private places
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08 criminalizes secretly or surreptitiously recording another person in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a restroom or locker room, when it is done for the purpose of viewing that person's private areas. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone for that purpose inside their home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private place directly implicates that statute alongside the wiretap prohibition.
Recording Audio and Ohio's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Ohio.
The statute: Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52
Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 mirrors the federal Wiretap Act but applies throughout the state regardless of whether a recording crosses state lines. Section 2933.52(A) sets out the general prohibition on unlawfully intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. Section 2933.52(B)(4) provides the one-party consent exception: interception is not unlawful when the person recording is a party to the communication, or when one party to the communication has given prior consent, and the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious, or other injurious act.
In practice, a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation (an employee speaking with a supervisor, a consumer on the phone with a business, a person having an in-person discussion with a neighbor) may lawfully record that conversation in Ohio without disclosing the recording to the other participants.
Ohio's "injurious purpose" carve-out
Ohio's one-party exception includes a meaningful limitation that mirrors the federal language but carries independent state-law force. The exception does not apply when the recording is made for "the purpose of committing any other injurious act." This means that if the purpose of the recording is to harm someone in a manner that is not technically criminal or tortious but is nonetheless injurious (such as to damage a reputation, to use as leverage, to facilitate stalking, or to extort) the consent exception does not apply and recording becomes a fourth-degree felony.
Congress removed the federal "injurious purpose" language in 1986, making the federal exception broader. Ohio retained it. Smart glasses users in Ohio cannot claim the one-party exception as a blanket protection whenever the recorder's purpose is to harm another person.
What one-party consent does not cover
The one-party exception applies only when the recorder is a genuine participant in the communication. It does not protect:
- Using smart glasses to record a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of.
- Secretly capturing oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be.
- Recording with the purpose of committing any criminal, tortious, or injurious act against another person.
Recording private conversations of others without participation is an unlawful interception under § 2933.52 and a fourth-degree felony.
Practical application
For a smart glasses wearer in Ohio, the one-party consent rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone (at work, at home, over the phone, or in a restaurant) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required.
- Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in is unlawful.
- Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.
For a complete analysis of Ohio's consent framework, see the Ohio Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08
Regardless of consent rules, Ohio law prohibits secretly recording another person in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when the purpose is to view that person's private areas. The statute turns on that purpose, not on location alone.
The four tiers of Ohio voyeurism
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08 distinguishes offenses by what was captured and who the victim was:
Section 2907.08(A): Eavesdropping on a private act criminalizes surreptitiously trespassing or otherwise invading another's privacy to spy or eavesdrop, but only when the person acts for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying themselves. Ordinary covert eavesdropping without that sexual motive is not an offense under this subsection. This is a third-degree misdemeanor carrying up to 60 days imprisonment and a fine of up to $500.
Section 2907.08(B): Recording private areas makes it a second-degree misdemeanor (up to 90 days, up to $750 fine) to secretly or surreptitiously videotape, film, photograph, broadcast, stream, or otherwise record another person in a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy for the purpose of viewing that person's private areas (genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast below the areola, whether nude or covered by an undergarment). The 2023 SB 16 amendment broadened this section from the prior "nudity" standard to cover private areas whether or not the person is fully undressed.
Section 2907.08(C): Recording a minor is a separate offense: secretly or surreptitiously videotaping, filming, photographing, broadcasting, streaming, or otherwise recording a minor in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, for the purpose of viewing the minor's private areas. It is a fifth-degree felony carrying 6 to 12 months imprisonment, a fine of up to $2,500, and mandatory placement on the Tier I sex-offender registry.
Section 2907.08(D): Upskirt recording prohibits secretly or surreptitiously recording another person above, under, or through the clothing that person is wearing, for the purpose of viewing their body or undergarments. This is a first-degree misdemeanor carrying up to 180 days imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. Divisions (B) and (C) list "broadcast" and "stream" among the covered acts, so livestreaming someone's private areas from a private place is covered there; division (D) lists videotaping, filming, photographing, or otherwise recording.
Locations where the prohibition applies most clearly
The prohibition applies most clearly in restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. These are locations where persons have an unambiguous reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. Smart glasses in these spaces are treated identically to any other recording device.
Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. § 1801, 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.
The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to the voyeurism prohibition. If anything, a device designed to look like ordinary eyewear heightens the evidence of intentional concealment, which is directly relevant to the "surreptitious" element of § 2907.08.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Ohio does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).
Under Ohio state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not expose a person to the same direct statutory-damages risk that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the same AG-enforcement risk that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI). That said, Ohio residents are not without recourse. Common-law privacy torts, particularly intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, apply regardless of any statute. An intentional intrusion upon someone's solitude or private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion.
The practical risk is greatest through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party reverse facial-recognition application. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Ohio users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under Ohio's stalking and menacing statutes.
If an Ohio smart glasses user captures the face of an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition in Ohio.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of oral communication | ORC § 2933.52 | Fourth-degree felony | 6-18 months / up to $5,000 fine |
| Voyeurism (eavesdropping for sexual gratification) | ORC § 2907.08(A) | Third-degree misdemeanor | 60 days / up to $500 fine |
| Voyeurism (recording private areas) | ORC § 2907.08(B) | Second-degree misdemeanor | 90 days / up to $750 fine |
| Voyeurism (upskirt recording) | ORC § 2907.08(D) | First-degree misdemeanor | 180 days / up to $1,000 fine |
| Voyeurism (minor victim) | ORC § 2907.08(C) | Fifth-degree felony | 6-12 months / up to $2,500 fine + Tier I sex-offender registration |
| Nonconsensual intimate images (first offense) | ORC § 2917.211 | Fifth-degree felony | 6-12 months / up to $2,500 fine |
| Nonconsensual intimate images (repeat offense) | ORC § 2917.211 | Fourth-degree felony | 6-18 months / up to $5,000 fine |
Civil remedies under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.65 are independent of criminal prosecution. A plaintiff may recover liquidated damages of the greater of $200 per day of violation or $10,000, plus actual damages, the violator's profits, and attorney fees. Claims must be filed within two years of discovery.
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations. A separate section, 18 U.S.C. § 2520, creates the federal civil claim: a court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Ohio
Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Ohio's one-party consent rule protects only genuine participants in a conversation. If the other person is addressing you directly and you are exchanging words with them, you are a participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the exception and face felony exposure under § 2933.52.
Keep the purpose lawful. Ohio's injurious-purpose carve-out means the one-party exception does not shield recordings made to extort, defame, harass, or stalk another person. Keep the purpose of any recording within lawful bounds. If the reason you are recording could be characterized as harming the other party rather than protecting a legitimate interest, reconsider whether to record at all.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Ohio law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring. This strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent if a dispute arises.
Disclose before sensitive meetings. Ohio law does not require you to disclose recordings of conversations you are part of, but disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting (a job interview, a medical appointment, a legal consultation) eliminates any ambiguity about consent, avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure entirely, and protects the admissibility of the recording if you later need to use it.
Never record in private spaces. Section 2907.08 makes it a crime to secretly record someone in a private place for the purpose of viewing their private areas, and even an innocent recording in these spaces invites that accusation. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or any other space where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. The felony-level penalties and mandatory sex-offender registration for minor victims make accidental violations extremely consequential.
Watch for cross-border calls. Ohio's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in Ohio. When either party to a call is located in an all-party consent state, the stricter law of the other state may apply. Illinois and Pennsylvania, states that share borders or regional proximity with Ohio, both require all-party consent (Illinois under 720 ILCS 5/14-2; Pennsylvania under 18 Pa. C.S. § 5703). If you are in Ohio but the other party is in either of those states, their all-party consent requirement may govern. When in doubt, disclose or confirm the other party's location.
Driving caution. No Ohio statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is analogous to a mounted GPS unit. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media posting, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device and remains legally unsettled.
More Ohio Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Ohio a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Ohio is a one-party consent state under Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4). If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. The consent exception does not apply if the recording is made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Ohio without telling the other person?
Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4) permits a party to the communication to record it without the knowledge of the other participants. You may not use this exception to record conversations you are not part of, and the purpose of the recording must not be criminal, tortious, or injurious.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Ohio?
Unlawfully intercepting an oral communication under § 2933.52 is a fourth-degree felony carrying 6 to 18 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. Civil remedies under § 2933.65 separately allow a plaintiff to recover the greater of $200 per day of violation or $10,000, plus actual damages, profits, and attorney fees.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Ohio?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. In private spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, private residences, and medical offices), recording intimate areas is a crime under Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08. Penalties range from a third-degree misdemeanor to a fifth-degree felony with mandatory Tier I sex-offender registration when the victim is a minor. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception.
Does Ohio have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?
Ohio has no dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois BIPA. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Ohio does not carry the same direct $1,000 to $5,000 per-person statutory exposure that exists in Illinois, but common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts still apply.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in Ohio?
The device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and your role in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator. Ohio law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent.
What happens if I record someone in Ohio who is in Illinois or Pennsylvania?
Both Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2) and Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C.S. § 5703) are all-party consent states. When a call or conversation includes a participant located in either state, that state's stricter rule may govern the recording. Ohio's one-party consent does not insulate you from another state's law if the other party is in an all-party state. Disclosing the recording before it begins is the safest approach for any cross-border conversation.
Can I record police officers with smart glasses in Ohio?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter (a traffic stop, a public street interaction), Ohio's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.
What is Ohio's injurious purpose rule for recordings?
Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4) bars the one-party consent exception when the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious, or other injurious act. Congress removed this 'injurious purpose' language from the federal Wiretap Act in 1986, but Ohio retained it. Recording to extort, defame, harass, or stalk someone is not protected even if you are a party to the conversation.
Does Ohio's voyeurism law apply to livestreamed smart-glasses recordings?
Yes. Divisions (B) and (C) of Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08 list 'broadcast' and 'stream' among the prohibited acts. Livestreaming someone's private areas from a locker room or restroom via smart glasses is covered by those divisions of the voyeurism statute, in addition to any wiretap or civil liability.
Updates
Corrected our description of Ohio's voyeurism statute (Ohio Rev. Code 2907.08) to reflect that the recording offense requires a purpose of viewing the person's private areas, rather than being an absolute ban on recording in private places.
Corrected the descriptions of State v. Bidinost and Katz v. United States: removed a holding Bidinost did not reach and attributed the two-part privacy test to Justice Harlan's Katz concurrence.
Corrected the federal civil damages citation to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, clarified the elements of Ohio voyeurism divisions (C) and (D) and which divisions cover streaming, and removed an unsupported claim about an Ohio consumer privacy act.
Corrected the page's description of Ohio Rev. Code 2907.08(A): it only criminalizes surreptitious eavesdropping done for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, not ordinary covert eavesdropping in general.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; 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.
Ohio Revised Code
§ 2933.52Interception of wire, oral or electronic communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(A) No person purposely shall do any of the following: (1) Intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure another person to intercept or attempt to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Use, attempt to use, or procure another person to use or attempt to use an interception device to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 64 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Bidinost (1994) held R.C. 2933.52(A)'s ban on purposeful interception applies to cordless telephone conversations intercepted and recorded on a baby monitor, requiring suppression. State v. Childs (2000) held the party seeking to suppress bears the burden of proving a 2933.52(A)(1) violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Robb (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59)✓During a prison siege, FBI agents used tunnel microphones to record rioting inmates' conversations without a warrant; the court held those interceptions were exempt under former Section 2933.52(B)(1), Ohio's exception for interceptions made under federal wiretap law.
- State v. Childs (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 558)✓A defendant sought to suppress tapes of her own conversations as intercepted in violation of Section 2933.52(A)(1), but no one proved whether the other party consented; the court held the party seeking suppression carries the burden of proof, so the motion failed.
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)✓A neighbor's baby monitor began picking up the defendant's cordless phone calls, and at police direction she recorded them; the court held that was a purposeful interception barred by Section 2933.52(A) and that the recordings had to be suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Audio Recording Laws: Consent, Devices, and Penalties, Ohio Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Privacy, Cameras, and Rights, Ohio Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties
§ 2907.08VoyeurismIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
(A) No person, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying the person's self, shall commit trespass or otherwise surreptitiously invade the privacy of another, to spy or eavesdrop upon another.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 97 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ohio courts have applied R.C. 2907.08 to conduct concealed from the victim. State v. Sipple (2021) held the state need not prove an image was actually captured to sustain an attempted-voyeurism conviction. State v. Goldblum (2014) held that acts committed while the victims slept satisfied the surreptitious-invasion element.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Sipple (Ohio Court of Appeals 2021, 170 N.E.3d 1273)✓Sipple put his phone under a woman's dress at an event without her knowledge. The court affirmed his attempted voyeurism conviction under R.C. 2907.08(D), holding the state need not prove a photo was taken and that stealth without her authority was surreptitious.
- State v. Goldblum (Ohio Court of Appeals 2014, 2014 Ohio 5068)✓Goldblum lifted the covers and clothing off girls sleeping at his home and stared at their genitals. Affirming convictions under R.C. 2907.08(C), the court held acts done while the victims slept surreptitiously invaded their privacy and that sexual purpose could be inferred.
- State v. Huffman (Ohio Court of Appeals 2006, 165 Ohio App. 3d 518)✓Huffman hid wireless cameras in his tanning salon rooms and recorded patrons, including a minor. Affirming convictions under R.C. 2907.08(B) and (C), the court held digital video is a series of photographs, so recording video counted as photographing under the statute.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Ohio Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy, Ohio School Recording Laws: Classrooms, IEP Meetings, and Surveillance
§ 2933.65Civil and criminal actions for wiretapping and electronic surveillance violationsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(A) A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communications are intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code may bring a civil action to recover from the person or entity that engaged in the violation any relief that may be…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)“…se of an interception warrant. See R.C. 2933.52(B)(1). 8 R.C. 2933.65 provides, in part: "(A) Any person…”
- Choby v. Aylsworth, 2006-L-144 (6-29-2007) (Ohio Court of Appeals 2007, 2007 Ohio 3375)“…ity), R.C. 2307.60 (civil recovery for criminal act), and R.C. 2933.65 (civil remedy for interception of wire…”
- John H. Nix v. Patrick J. O'Malley Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998, 160 F.3d 343)“…parties to the intercepted communications. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2933.65 (Banks-Baldwin 1998) (reprinting the pr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules, Penalties, and Compliance, Ohio Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Ohio Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
§ 2917.211Dissemination of image of another personIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(A) As used in this section: (1) "Child-victim oriented offense" and "sexually oriented offense" have the same meanings as in section 2950.01 of the Revised Code.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ohio's Fifth District Court of Appeals has twice found the evidence sufficient under this section for person-to-person sends. State v. Allison (2021) upheld a conviction where nude photographs of the victim were texted to her daughter, and State v. Gilmore (2024) did the same where nude images of an ex-girlfriend were emailed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hudson (Ohio Court of Appeals 2022, 2022 Ohio 3253)“…ssemination of private sexual images, each in violation of R.C. 2917.211, misdemeanors of the second degree. The…”
- State v. Gilmore (Ohio Court of Appeals 2024, 2024 Ohio 2095)✓A man emailed nude and sexually explicit photos of his ex-girlfriend to her brother-in-law with taunting messages after she refused to reconcile; the court held the evidence sufficient on the elements of R.C. 2917.211 and affirmed the conviction.
- State v. Bradley (Ohio Court of Appeals 2026, 2026 Ohio 232)✓After a breakup, a man stalked his ex, broke into her home, and sent nude photos and a video of her to her new boyfriend; the court held the R.C. 2917.211(B) dissemination count was committed separately from the stalking counts, so the offenses did not merge.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
§ 2933.58Prosecutor's instructions to investigative officersIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(A) Upon the issuance of an interception warrant pursuant to section 2933.54 of the Revised Code and prior to the execution of the warrant or upon a grant of an oral order for an interception under section 2933.57 of the Revised Code, the prosecuting attorney or assistant prosecuting attorney who…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Geraldo (Ohio Supreme Court 1981, 68 Ohio St. 2d 120)“…to be read in pari materia with the consent provision of R. C. 2933.58.” R. C. 2933.58 provides: “(A) Except…”
- State v. Nettles (Ohio Court of Appeals 2018, 2018 Ohio 4908)“…ce.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 547. 1 R.C. 2933.58(C) provides: An interception wa…”
- William G. Brooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. Geraldo Rivera Charles C. Thompson and Maravilla Productions Company, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1991, 932 F.2d 495)“…e contends that ABC violated a now-repealed Ohio statute, O.R.C. § 2933.58. 1 Section 2933.58 provide…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 63 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Security Camera Laws: BIPA, Audio Rules, and Placement (2026)
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally 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 (3) intentionally 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.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights, Ring Doorbell Laws by State: Complete 2026 Legal Guide, Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52 (Interception of communications prohibited). Sets out the general prohibition on unlawfully intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications and provides the one-party consent exception at § 2933.52(B)(4). Unlawful interception is a fourth-degree felony: 6 to 18 months imprisonment and up to $5,000 fine.(codes.ohio.gov)
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.65 (Civil damages for unlawful interception). Successful plaintiffs may recover liquidated damages of the greater of $200 per day of violation or $10,000, plus actual damages, the violator's profits, and attorney fees. Two-year limitations period from discovery.(codes.ohio.gov)
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.08 (Voyeurism). Prohibits surreptitious recording in places where persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Subsection (A) applies only when the person acts for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying themselves; ordinary covert eavesdropping without that motive is not an offense under it. 2023 SB 16 amendment broadened section (B) from 'nudity' to 'private areas' (genitals, pubic area, buttocks, female breast below areola, whether nude or covered) and added 'broadcast' and 'stream' as covered conduct. Penalties range from a third-degree misdemeanor (sexually motivated eavesdropping) to a fifth-degree felony with mandatory Tier I sex-offender registration (minor victim).(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2917.211 (Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images). First offense is a fifth-degree felony (effective September 30, 2025): 6 to 12 months, up to $2,500 fine. Repeat offense is a fourth-degree felony: 6 to 18 months, up to $5,000 fine.(codes.ohio.gov)
- Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.58 (Defenses to civil liability). Good-faith reliance on a court order or statutory authorization provides a complete defense to civil liability under the Ohio wiretap chapter.(codes.ohio.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability of at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) (Definition of oral communication as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception). Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public 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 they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine, stop recording if asked, and comply with applicable law.(meta.com)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Recovery of civil damages authorized). Federal civil claim for unlawful interception: a court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.(law.cornell.edu)