Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania 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. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, you can legally wear and use Meta Ray-Ban or similar smart glasses in Pennsylvania, but the state's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA) imposes one of the strictest audio-recording rules in the country. Every participant in a private conversation must consent before you record audio, and violating that rule is a third-degree felony carrying up to seven years in prison. Smart glasses that capture audio without all-party consent create criminal exposure the moment you activate them near a private conversation.
Are smart glasses legal to own and wear in Pennsylvania?
Smart glasses are entirely legal to purchase and wear in Pennsylvania. There is no state statute restricting the ownership or wearing of recording-capable eyewear, including Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses, or any other wearable camera device.
The legal question is not whether you can wear the glasses; it is what you record with them. The moment the audio microphone is active and capturing a private conversation, Pennsylvania's WESCA becomes the controlling law. Wearing smart glasses in public with the camera idle, or using them only for non-audio features like navigation or photo-viewing, raises no criminal issue.
Pennsylvania also has no law restricting smart glasses while driving beyond the general distracted-driving framework. Using AR-style heads-up-display features for navigation is analogous to a mounted GPS device. Watching video, conducting video calls, or engaging in social media while operating a vehicle is a different matter and falls within the state's general inattentive-driving exposure.
Recording video in public vs. private spaces
Video recording in public (streets, sidewalks, parks, transit stations, public plazas) is generally lawful in Pennsylvania. Persons in public spaces have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen, and silent video capture without audio does not trigger WESCA.
This is the central split in smart-glasses law: video and audio are governed by completely different legal frameworks.
Silent video in public: lawful.
Audio capture of a private conversation without all-party consent: a felony.
The practical challenge with smart glasses is that they record video and audio simultaneously. Every time you activate recording near another person, you are capturing both. In private settings (a restaurant, a workplace meeting room, a medical office, a friend's home) the audio channel triggers WESCA and requires all-party consent.
Semi-public spaces complicate the analysis. A lively bar conversation at a loud venue may fall outside WESCA's reach because there is no reasonable expectation that the words are private. A quiet one-on-one conversation in a restaurant booth almost certainly carries that expectation. Pennsylvania courts apply the two-prong test from Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967): the speaker must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Recording audio and the all-party consent rule
Pennsylvania's WESCA, codified at 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5703-5704, prohibits any person from intentionally intercepting, using, or disclosing any oral, wire, or electronic communication without the consent of every party to that communication. This is not a one-party-consent state. Being a participant in the conversation gives you no right to secretly record it.
The statute's definition of "oral communication" requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. A public speech, an open declaration in a crowded space, or a loud exchange on a busy street corner will often fall outside WESCA because no such expectation exists. The moment a conversation shifts to a setting where participants reasonably expect it to be private (a closed office, a medical appointment, a personal phone call), WESCA's all-party rule applies in full force.
How this maps to smart glasses in practice:
Recording a conversation you are part of at a business meeting, a job interview, a personal discussion, or a home visit requires every other participant's advance consent. There is no implied-consent shortcut. The all-party requirement comes directly from the statutory text of Sections 5703 and 5704, which Pennsylvania courts apply as written. Commonwealth v. Spence, 91 A.3d 44 (Pa. 2014), addressed a narrower question: the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a telephone and its components are not a covered "device" under WESCA, so an officer who overheard a call through a police informant's own cell-phone speaker did not commit an unlawful interception. Spence limits the reach of the Wiretap Act's device element; it does not establish or expand the all-party consent standard.
The federal baseline does not protect you. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) allows a party to a conversation to record it without the other participants' knowledge. Pennsylvania's stricter all-party rule overrides that baseline for anyone recording in Pennsylvania or recording Pennsylvania residents.
One exception: telemarketing calls. Since February 12, 2024, Act 53 of 2023 added a limited exception to § 5704 permitting call recipients to record unsolicited telemarketing calls or robocalls without disclosure, solely to enforce the TCPA or Pennsylvania UTPCPL. This exception applies to phone calls only; it does not extend to in-person smart-glasses recordings.
For the complete treatment of Pennsylvania's consent law, see the Pennsylvania Recording Laws parent page.
Recording in restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas
Pennsylvania's video voyeurism law is narrower than a flat location ban, but it is the main criminal risk for smart glasses in places where people undress.
Pennsylvania's invasion of privacy statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1, makes it a crime to knowingly record another person, without that person's knowledge and consent, while they are in a state of full or partial nudity in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or to record their intimate parts that they do not intend to be publicly visible. The offense requires that the recording be done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. The statute defines a protected place as one where a reasonable person would believe they could undress without being viewed or filmed, which typically covers restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, and fitting rooms.
Distributing or transmitting recordings made in those spaces is also a separate violation under § 7507.1.
Penalties under § 7507.1:
A first offense is a misdemeanor of the third degree, carrying up to one year in prison and a $2,500 fine. Multiple violations escalate to a misdemeanor of the second degree: up to two years and a $5,000 fine.
The covert nature of smart glasses (they appear to be ordinary eyewear) is relevant to whether the people recorded knew about it. A prosecution under § 7507.1 must still prove the sexual-arousal or gratification purpose, but an accidental recording in a changing area can still create practical problems, including a police investigation, and any audio it captures raises separate WESCA exposure. The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1801, independently prohibits similar conduct on federal property.
Recording the police and public officials with smart glasses
Pennsylvania residents have a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their official duties in public spaces. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit established this rule in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017), which is binding precedent in all Pennsylvania federal courts.
Fields did not address smart glasses or other wearable devices, but it frames the right to record in device-neutral terms: to photograph, film, or audio record police officers conducting official police activity in public areas. The right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, and recording that interferes with police activity might not be protected. The court did not decide questions of device seizure, footage deletion, or warrants; the plaintiffs dismissed their Fourth Amendment claims by stipulation before the appeal.
Public government meetings are separately protected under Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act, 65 Pa.C.S. § 711, which requires all public agency meetings to be open and expressly permits recording. City council sessions, school board meetings, and county commission hearings carry no reasonable expectation of privacy, so WESCA's all-party rule does not apply to audio captured there.
Facial recognition and biometric law
Pennsylvania has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), 740 ILCS 14, or the Texas CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001. Pennsylvania does not require written consent before capturing face geometry, and there is no state-law private right of action for biometric data collection as of June 2026.
However, three federal and multi-state risks remain for Pennsylvania users of smart glasses with facial-recognition features:
Illinois BIPA exposure. If you use smart glasses with a facial-recognition app to scan Illinois residents (for example, at a conference or event with Illinois attendees), BIPA applies based on the location of the scanned individual. BIPA requires written consent before collecting biometric identifiers including face geometry, and allows $1,000 to $5,000 in statutory damages per person.
Washington RCW Chapter 19.375. Commercial enrollment of biometric identifiers captured in Washington without notice and a consent or opt-out mechanism violates Washington's biometric law, enforced by the state Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act.
Civil intrusion upon seclusion. Pennsylvania common law recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B. Covertly scanning a person's face to identify them without consent in a semi-private setting could satisfy both elements: intentional intrusion and conduct highly offensive to a reasonable person.
The I-XRAY demonstration in October 2024, in which Harvard students used Meta Ray-Ban glasses together with third-party facial-recognition software to identify strangers in real time and extract home addresses and partial Social Security numbers, illustrated the real-world capability of this technology. The demonstration used PimEyes, not a Meta feature, and it confirmed the pipeline is feasible with consumer hardware.
Penalties for WESCA violations
Pennsylvania imposes some of the most severe penalties in the country for illegal recording.
Criminal penalties under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703:
| Offense | Classification | Max Prison | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception (audio capture without all-party consent) | Third-degree felony | 7 years | $15,000 |
| Illegal disclosure of intercepted content | Third-degree felony | 7 years | $15,000 |
| Illegal use of intercepted content | Third-degree felony | 7 years | $15,000 |
A felony conviction in Pennsylvania creates a permanent record affecting employment, professional licensing, housing applications, and civil rights. The offense is complete at the moment of interception; you do not need to share the recording for criminal liability to attach.
Civil remedies under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725:
The person illegally recorded can sue for actual damages, liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 minimum (whichever is greater), punitive damages at the court's discretion, and attorney fees and litigation costs. The civil exposure is independent of any criminal prosecution.
Evidence suppression under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1:
Any recording obtained in violation of WESCA is inadmissible in any court, grand jury, or regulatory proceeding. A smart-glasses recording captured without all-party consent cannot be used as evidence and may expose the person who made it to both criminal prosecution and a civil suppression motion.
Practical tips for smart glasses users in Pennsylvania
In two-party consent states, disclosure is the only safe path. Before activating audio recording near anyone in a private setting in Pennsylvania, inform every person present and obtain their agreement. A brief verbal statement ("I am recording this conversation with my glasses; is everyone okay with that?") followed by acknowledgment satisfies the consent requirement.
Let the capture LED show. Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking photos, or streaming live. Keeping the LED unobstructed is both the manufacturer's guidance and the practical minimum notice to nearby persons. Meta's official privacy guidance states: "Let that capture LED light shine." Covering or disabling the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring and significantly strengthens evidence of non-consensual intent.
Understand the audio-off option. Smart glasses typically allow video-only capture with microphone disabled. In Pennsylvania, video-only recording in public is lawful. Using glasses in audio-off mode in private settings eliminates the WESCA risk while preserving the visual record.
Do not record in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. Section 7507.1 criminalizes recording people who are undressed there, or their intimate parts, without their knowledge and consent for a sexual purpose. The glasses' form factor creates no exception, and even an innocent recording in these spaces invites suspicion and possible investigation, so turn capture off before you enter.
Workplace recordings carry dual risk. Secretly recording coworkers, clients, or supervisors in a business meeting violates § 5703. Under the NLRB's Stericycle standard (372 NLRB No. 113, Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording workplace policy is presumptively unlawful, but that does not make secret recording legal. It means the employer cannot ban all recording categorically; it does not create a right to record covertly. Under NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 26, 2025), undisclosed recording during collective-bargaining sessions is a per se unfair labor practice. A Pennsylvania employee who secretly records a union negotiation therefore faces both WESCA felony exposure and a federal labor law violation simultaneously.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Pennsylvania recording laws are complex and apply differently depending on the context and the specific facts of each situation. For advice about your circumstances, consult a licensed Pennsylvania attorney.
More Pennsylvania Laws
- Pennsylvania Data Privacy Laws
- Pennsylvania Deepfake Laws
- Pennsylvania Drone Laws
- Pennsylvania Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are smart glasses legal in Pennsylvania?
Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Pennsylvania. There is no statute restricting the device itself. The legal issue is what you record. Silent video in public is generally lawful. Recording the audio of a private conversation without all-party consent violates 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 and is a third-degree felony carrying up to 7 years in prison.
Can I record audio with smart glasses in Pennsylvania?
Only with the consent of every participant in the conversation. Pennsylvania's WESCA requires all-party consent for any audio recording of a private oral communication. Being a party to the conversation yourself does not give you the right to record without the others' knowledge and agreement. Violation is a third-degree felony.
What is the penalty for illegal audio recording in Pennsylvania?
Illegal interception, disclosure, or use of a communication under 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 is a third-degree felony: up to 7 years in prison and a fine of up to $15,000 per violation. Civil damages under § 5725 include $100 per day of violation (minimum $1,000), plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Can I record video-only with smart glasses in Pennsylvania?
Silent video in public spaces is generally lawful in Pennsylvania because people in public have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed. If you disable the microphone and capture only video, WESCA does not apply. However, knowingly recording a person's intimate parts, or a person who is undressed in a private space, without their knowledge and consent for a sexual purpose is separately a crime under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1, with or without audio.
Can I record police with smart glasses in Pennsylvania?
Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) recognizes a First Amendment right to photograph, film, or audio record police officers conducting official police activity in public areas. The opinion did not address smart glasses specifically. Avoid interfering with police operations; the right to record recognized in Fields is not absolute and is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The court did not decide questions of device seizure, footage deletion, or warrants.
Can I secretly record a meeting at work with smart glasses?
No. Pennsylvania's all-party consent rule applies fully in the workplace. Secretly recording coworkers, supervisors, or clients in a private business setting violates 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703. Additionally, undisclosed recording during collective-bargaining sessions is a per se unfair labor practice under NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 (June 26, 2025), creating simultaneous state felony and federal labor law exposure.
Is it illegal to cover the recording LED on my smart glasses in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania has no statute specifically criminalizing covering a smart-glasses LED as of June 2026. However, disabling the only external notice of recording removes evidence of any good-faith disclosure attempt and substantially strengthens a prosecution's evidence of non-consensual intent under § 5703. California SB 1130 would have made LED-disabling a crime in California, but the Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so it never took effect and has no legal effect in Pennsylvania.
Does Pennsylvania have a biometric privacy law covering facial recognition from smart glasses?
Pennsylvania has no dedicated biometric privacy statute as of June 2026. However, if you use smart glasses with facial-recognition features to scan Illinois residents, Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14) applies and allows $1,000 to $5,000 in statutory damages per person scanned without written consent. Pennsylvania common law also recognizes intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B.
Can I record in restrooms or locker rooms with smart glasses in Pennsylvania?
You should not. Under 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1 it is a crime to knowingly record a person who is fully or partially nude in a place such as a restroom, locker room, or changing room, or to record their intimate parts, without their knowledge and consent when done to arouse or gratify sexual desire. The wearable form factor does not create an exception, and any audio captured raises separate WESCA exposure. A first offense is a misdemeanor of the third degree (up to 1 year); multiple violations escalate to a misdemeanor of the second degree (up to 2 years).
Updates
Corrected the descriptions of Fields v. City of Philadelphia and Katz v. United States to what the opinions actually say, removing smart-glasses, safe-distance, and warrant claims the Fields court did not make.
Corrected our description of Pennsylvania's invasion of privacy law (18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1): it covers recording people who are undressed, or their intimate parts, without their knowledge and consent for a sexual purpose, not all recording in restrooms or locker rooms regardless of consent.
Corrected the Fields v. City of Philadelphia case citation (862 F.3d 353, not 845 F.3d 508) in three places, fixed a citation that mischaracterized what Commonwealth v. Spence and Boettger v. Loverro actually hold, and corrected the NLRB GC Memorandum 25-07 date to June 26, 2025.
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.
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.
§ 7507.1Invasion of privacyIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (d), a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, knowingly does any of the following: (1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (2) Photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records or personally views the intimate parts, whether or not covered by clothing, of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and which intimate parts that person does not intend to be visible by normal public observation. (3) Transfers or transmits an image obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In Com. v. Dinell, Z. (2022), the Superior Court read section 7507.1(a)(1) as requiring four elements, including that the defendant acted for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, and vacated a guilty plea where the defendant denied any sexual purpose and was told no such element existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2017, 164 A.3d 1189)“…18 Pa.C.S. §6312(d) (relating to sexual abuse of children); 18 Pa.C.S. §7507.1 (relating to invasion of privacy); 18 U…”
- Com. v. Dinell, Z. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2022, 270 A.3d 530)✓A care home worker pled guilty to 14 counts of invasion of privacy for phone photos of nude residents, but said nothing sexual was involved. The court held section 7507.1(a)(1) requires a sexual purpose as an element and let him withdraw the plea.
- Commonwealth, Aplt v. Kingston, S. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2016, 636 Pa. 438)“…olations” of a particular criminal offense. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a.1) (listing circumstances under which…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5725Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages. (3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity.--To the extent that the Commonwealth and any of its officers, officials or employees would be shielded from liability under this section by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, such immunity is hereby waived for the purposes of this section. (c) Defense.--It is a defense to an action brought pursuant to subsection (a) that the actor acted in good faith reliance on a court order or the provisions of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Agnew v. Dupler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1998, 553 Pa. 33)“…and shall be entitled to recover from any such person ... 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an “oral co…”
- McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2015, 123 A.3d 1136)“…ust and proper pursuant to Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5725. In April 2015, Responde…”
- Keppley v. School District of Twin Valley (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2005, 866 A.2d 1165)“…lectronic or oral communication. Section 5725 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, authorizes a civil action by any perso…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 26 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 126 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5721.1Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidenceIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Disclosure in evidence generally.-- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), no person shall disclose the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, in any proceeding in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth. (2) Any person who has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, which is properly subject to disclosure under section 5717 (relating to investigative disclosure or use of contents of wire, electronic or oral communications or derivative evidence) may also disclose such contents or evidence in any matter relating to any criminal, quasi-criminal, forfeiture, administrative enforcement or professional disciplinary proceedings in any court, board or agency of this Commonwealth or of another state or of the United States or before any state or Federal grand jury or investigating grand jury. Once such disclosure has been made, then any person may disclose the contents or evidence in any such proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)“…e contents of any wire communication in a court proceeding. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(a). An “aggrieved person,” party to a c…”
- Commonwealth v. Ruder (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2013, 62 A.3d 1038)“…sionary rule that extends to non-constitutional violations. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(b); Commonwealth v. Spangler, 570 P…”
- Commonwealth v. Spangler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2002, 570 Pa. 226)“…procurement of a court order, or without probable cause. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. [7] Presently, the Commonwealth and…”
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.
§ 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.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 65 (Public Officers)
§ 711Use of equipment during meetingsIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
(a) Recording devices.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a person attending a meeting of an agency shall have the right to use recording devices to record all the proceedings. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the agency from adopting and enforcing reasonable rules for their use under section 710 (relating to rules and regulations for conduct of meetings). (b) Rules of the Senate and House of Representatives.--The Senate and House of Representatives may adopt rules governing the recording or broadcast of their sessions and meetings and hearings of committees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703: Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications (WESCA prohibition + felony penalty)(palegis.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 5704: Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure (consent exceptions; Act 53 of 2023 telemarketer exception)(palegis.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725: Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use ($100/day or $1,000 minimum + punitive damages)(palegis.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1: Invasion of privacy (video voyeurism: restrooms, locker rooms, intimate areas)(palegis.us).gov
- 65 Pa.C.S. § 711: Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (open public meetings; recording permitted)(palegis.us).gov
- PA House: Act 53 of 2023 (HB 1278): telemarketer recording exception, WESCA sunset extended to 2029(pahouse.com).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511: Federal Wiretap Act, prohibition and one-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801: Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act (federal property)(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta AI Glasses: Privacy and the capture LED indicator light(meta.com)
- Illinois BIPA, 740 ILCS 14: Biometric Information Privacy Act (applies to IL residents scanned with facial-recognition-enabled smart glasses)(ilga.gov).gov
- NLRB: Acting GC Memorandum 25-07: Surreptitious Recording of Collective Bargaining Sessions (June 26, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov