Rhode Island
Rhode Island 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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Rhode Island, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under , you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants. Recording in private spaces where people expect visual privacy is a separate criminal offense under the state's video voyeurism statute regardless of consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Rhode Island?
Yes. Rhode Island has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under Rhode Island or federal law.
The legal analysis begins when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, and your relationship to any conversation being captured. Rhode Island follows the standard one-party consent framework: if you are part of the conversation, you may record it. If you are not, you may not.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Rhode Island under both state and federal law. When a person is in public, whether on a sidewalk in Providence, at a beach in Newport, or in a shopping center, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act defines "oral communication" under (2) as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger that statute. Rhode Island law applies the same principle.
This means smart glasses worn on a public street, at an outdoor event, or in a publicly accessible building generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone, so long as the camera is not pointed into a private space.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis shifts in semi-public and 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 technically accessible to others, such as a workplace conference room during a private discussion or a restaurant booth during a personal conversation, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of words exchanged there.
Under Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the constitutional test for a reasonable expectation of privacy requires both a subjective expectation and one that society recognizes as objectively reasonable. Rhode Island courts apply this framework when evaluating whether a location or communication is private within the meaning of the state's interception and voyeurism statutes.
Recording in private places
Rhode Island's video voyeurism statute, , separately prohibits recording or transmitting images of an individual's intimate areas without that person's consent, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation, in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This provision applies fully to smart glasses and reaches any context where the video stream is directed at a person in a private space or where a person's intimate areas could be captured. Using smart glasses to secretly record someone inside a private home, a hotel room, a medical office, or any enclosed private space directly implicates § 11-64-2 alongside the interception prohibition.
Recording Audio and Rhode Island's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Rhode Island.
The statute: R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21
is Rhode Island's electronic surveillance and wiretapping statute. It mirrors the structure of the federal Wiretap Act but applies within the state regardless of whether a recording crosses state lines. The section establishes the general prohibition on willfully intercepting, disclosing, or using wire, electronic, or oral communications without lawful authorization.
Rhode Island aligns with the federal one-party consent baseline at (2)(d): interception is not unlawful when a person who is a party to the communication consents. Because the wearer of smart glasses is typically a participant in the conversation being recorded, that participation satisfies the consent requirement. Rhode Island does not demand all-party consent and does not require that any other participant be notified.
In practice, a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation, whether an employee discussing a workplace matter, a consumer speaking with a business representative, or a person having a personal discussion with a friend, may lawfully record that conversation in Rhode Island without disclosing the recording to the other participants.
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:
- Recording a private conversation between two other people who are not speaking to the wearer.
- Placing glasses on a table or shelf to capture a conversation in a room the wearer has left.
- Recording the private communications of others in any context where the wearer has no role in the exchange.
A person who uses smart glasses to capture a private conversation in which they play no part faces felony exposure under § 11-35-21. The one-party exception exists because the recording party is themselves a party to the communication; remove that participation and the exception disappears entirely.
Practical application
For a smart glasses wearer in Rhode Island, the one-party consent rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are actively having with another person 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 and a felony.
- Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.
For a complete analysis of Rhode Island's consent framework, see the Rhode Island Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Video Voyeurism Under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2
Regardless of consent rules, Rhode Island law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.
criminalizes knowingly and intentionally photographing, filming, recording, or transmitting images of the intimate areas of another person without that person's consent, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation, in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy from such observation. The statute covers restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. The fact that smart glasses look like ordinary eyewear to bystanders does not create any exception. The covert appearance of the device is directly relevant to the knowing and intentional elements of the offense.
Federal law adds a parallel floor. , the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The rule is absolute: no location in Rhode Island, and no claimed consent from any third party other than the person being observed, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect privacy.
Violations of § 11-64-2 carry a criminal penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. Because the statute is separate from the wiretap prohibition, a person who both unlawfully intercepts audio and unlawfully records intimate images in a private space faces exposure under both statutes simultaneously.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not trigger a standalone biometric statute the way it would in Illinois, where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent, or in Texas, where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent.
Rhode Island residents are not without recourse, however. Common-law privacy torts apply regardless of any biometric statute. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability. The act of covert recording itself can satisfy that standard without requiring that the footage ever be shared or published.
The biometric risk is most acute through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party facial recognition application to identify strangers. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time, retrieving home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Rhode Island users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the information is used for stalking or harassment, potential criminal exposure under Rhode Island's stalking statutes.
If a Rhode Island 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.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | Felony | Up to 5 years imprisonment |
| Video voyeurism (recording intimate areas without consent, for sexual gratification) | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2 | Criminal | Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or $5,000 fine |
| Civil damages for unlawful interception | Civil | Greatest of: actual damages, $100/day, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees |
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act () independently imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per unlawful interception. Civil claims under both the state and federal statutes can proceed independently of any criminal prosecution.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Rhode Island
Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Rhode Island's one-party consent rule protects only genuine participants in a conversation. If the other person is speaking with you and you are responding, you are a participant and the 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 § 11-35-21.
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. Rhode Island law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearable devices, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring. This strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.
Disclose before sensitive meetings. Rhode Island law does not require disclosing recordings of conversations you are a party to, but announcing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting eliminates civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure and protects the admissibility of the recording in any future proceeding. One sentence of disclosure at the start of a meeting costs nothing.
Never record in private spaces. The prohibition under § 11-64-2 on recording intimate areas in private locations for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation is a criminal offense carrying up to 3 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms, or any other space where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body.
Watch for cross-border conversations with Connecticut residents. Connecticut is an all-party consent state. When you are in Rhode Island but a person you are communicating with is located in Connecticut, Connecticut's stricter all-party consent requirement may govern the recording of that private conversation. Disclosing the recording before it begins is the safest approach whenever a participant may be in a neighboring all-party state.
Driving caution. Rhode Island prohibits using a handheld electronic device while driving under state traffic law. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Rhode Island statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS unit. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media posting, or video calls while operating a vehicle raises the same distracted-driving concerns as any electronic device and remains legally unsettled.
More Rhode Island Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Rhode Island a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Rhode Island is a one-party consent state under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21. If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. Rhode Island does not require all-party consent, and the state aligns with the federal one-party baseline at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Rhode Island without telling the other person?
Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 permits a party to a communication to record it without the knowledge of the other participants. You may not use this rule to record conversations you are not part of, and recording private conversations of others without participation is a felony.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Rhode Island?
Willful interception under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 is a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment. Civil remedies under § 12-5.1-13 allow a plaintiff to recover the greatest of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or a $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Federal Wiretap Act civil liability adds at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Rhode Island?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. In private spaces, recording intimate areas without consent for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation is a crime under R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2 and can result in up to 3 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to this prohibition.
What is Rhode Island's video voyeurism law and how does it apply to smart glasses?
R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2 prohibits knowingly and intentionally recording the intimate areas of another person without consent, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation, in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This applies to smart glasses exactly as it applies to any other camera. Restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical facilities are covered locations. Penalties are up to 3 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine.
Does Rhode Island have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
No. Rhode Island has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Rhode Island does not trigger a state biometric statute, though common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts still apply, and you may face liability under the laws of the state where an identified person resides.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in Rhode Island?
The device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any audio conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator. Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island who is in Connecticut?
Connecticut is an all-party consent state. When a call or conversation includes a participant located in Connecticut, Connecticut's stricter rule may govern the recording. Rhode Island's one-party consent does not insulate you from another state's law if the other party is in an all-party consent 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 Rhode Island?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter such as a traffic stop or street interaction, Rhode Island's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording of that conversation. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity during recording.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Restored the sexual-arousal/gratification/stimulation purpose element required by R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-2, which the article had omitted in seven places (KeyTakeaways, body prose, penalties table, tips, FAQ, and the Sources citation).
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.
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-35: Public Utilities
§ 11-35-21Unauthorized interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic, or oral communicationIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter 5.1 of title 12, any person: (1) who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) who willfully discloses or attempts to disclose to any person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; or (3) who willfully uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; shall be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years. (b) The provisions of subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from those contents, which has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (2010) held municipalities are not persons who may be sued under sections 11-35-21 and 12-5.1-13. The earlier Walden v. City of Providence (2007) held this section is criminal but that R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-2 supplies a civil right of action for its violation.
Leading cases:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Stat. § 165.540 (1997); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (2000); R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (2000); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 (…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…te, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.; Rhode Island's wiretap laws, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-35-21, 12-5.1-13; and the state'…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…43 (1998); 18 Pa Cons Stat. Ann. §§ 5703, 5725 (West 1999); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (1998); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Rhode Island Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Evidence Rules (2026), Rhode Island Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-64: Electronic Imaging Devices
§ 11-64-2Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of video voyeurism when, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification or stimulation, such person: (a) Uses, installs or permits the use or installation of an imaging device to capture, record, store or transmit visual images of the intimate areas of another person without that other person’s knowledge and consent, and under circumstances in which that other person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Intentionally, and with knowledge that the image was obtained in violation of subsection (a), disseminates, publishes, or sells such image of the captured representation of another person or persons depicted in the representation or reproduction, and who did not consent to the dissemination, publication or sale. (2) A person is also guilty of video voyeurism when that person, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification or stimulation, looks into an occupied dwelling or other building by use of an imaging device that provides images of the interior of a dwelling.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2014
Leading cases:
- United States v. Thoms (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 2014)“…2C:14-9 (West 2013); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7507.1 (2012); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2 (2004); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470 (201…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026), Rhode Island Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Rhode Island Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 12: Criminal Procedure, Chapter 12-5.1: Interception of Wire and Oral Communications
§ 12-5.1-13Civil remedyIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) 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 the communications, and shall be entitled to recover from that person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) Reasonable attorneys’ fees and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred. (b) Good faith reliance on a court order issued under this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this section or any other law. Any communications common carrier and its employees shall be deemed to have acted in good faith upon receipt of a certified copy of the court order issued under this chapter and the representations of the attorney general or an assistant attorney general specially designated by the attorney general.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2010
Leading cases:
- Walden v. City of Providence (District Court, D. Rhode Island 2007, 495 F. Supp. 2d 245)“…son who intercepts, discloses, or uses the communications.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13. Thus, where an interception is made in…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…scloses, or uses the communications" at issue. R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13(a). Further, recovery is "from that pe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Rhode Island Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026), Rhode Island Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Leading cases:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Leading cases:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21: Wire, electronic, and oral communications interception. One-party consent rule; felony up to 5 years imprisonment.(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2: Video voyeurism. Prohibits recording intimate areas without consent, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation, in locations with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Up to 3 years imprisonment and/or $5,000 fine.(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13: Civil cause of action for illegal interception. Recovery of actual damages, $100/day, or $1,000 minimum (whichever is greatest), plus punitive damages and attorney fees.(webserver.rilegislature.gov).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. 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.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance to comply with applicable law.(meta.com)
- R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (Wire, electronic, and oral communications interception). Sets out the wiretapping prohibition and the one-party consent rule. Willful interception without consent is a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment. Source of Rhode Island's core audio recording consent rule.(recordinglaw.com)