South Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Guide

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in South Dakota, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20, any party to a conversation may record it without notifying the other participants. Trespassing to surveil a private place and nonconsensual intimate recording are separate criminal offenses under other statutes.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in South Dakota?

Yes. South Dakota has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely available throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under South Dakota 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 South Dakota under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, at a sporting event, or in a government building open to the public) they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) covers only communications uttered under circumstances that justify a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger the federal statute, and South Dakota law follows the same principle.

Smart glasses worn at an outdoor festival in Sioux Falls, on the campus of South Dakota State University, along the trails of Custer State Park, or at a public legislative hearing generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone, provided the wearer is not recording in a way designed to capture intimate areas.

Semi-public and private spaces

The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a hotel room, a medical office, or a closed conference 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 concurrence described a twofold requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy: a person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Courts apply this framework when determining whether a location or communication qualifies as private under wiretap and voyeurism statutes.

Recording in private places

SDCL § 22-21-1 criminalizes trespassing on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or surveillance in a private place, and installing recording devices in private places without consent. Entering someone's home or office without permission in order to record there implicates this statute alongside the wiretap prohibition. Its text reaches trespass and installed devices, not simply wearing glasses in a place you are lawfully present.

Recording Audio and South Dakota's One-Party Consent Rule

This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in South Dakota.

The statute: SDCL § 23A-35A-20

South Dakota Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 is the state's wiretap and interception statute. It prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by persons who are not a sender, a receiver, or a person otherwise present at the communication. The one-party consent framework flows from that exclusion: any party to a conversation is expressly permitted to record it without the knowledge or consent of the other participants.

In practice, a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation (an employee speaking with a supervisor, a consumer dealing with a business representative, a person having an in-person discussion with a neighbor) may lawfully record that conversation in South Dakota without disclosing the recording to the other participants, because they are a party to the communication.

The statute applies to in-person conversations, telephone calls, and electronic communications alike. The dual-capture capability of smart glasses (simultaneous audio and video) means the wiretap analysis applies to the audio component whenever voices are being captured.

What one-party consent does not cover

The one-party consent rule has clear limits that smart glasses users must understand.

The exception applies only when the recorder is a genuine participant in the communication. It does not protect:

• Using smart glasses to capture a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of.
• Secretly recording oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be present.

Section 23A-35A-20 makes it a Class 5 felony for a person who is not a sender, a receiver, or a person present during the conversation to intentionally record it with an eavesdropping device without a party's consent. The statute does not define "present," so a wearer who is nearby but not taking part is on uncertain ground, and the federal Wiretap Act separately prohibits intercepting an oral communication without a party's consent. The South Dakota statute contains no purpose test, but the federal one-party exception in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not apply to a recording made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

Practical application

For a smart glasses wearer in South Dakota, the one-party consent rule means:

• Recording a conversation you are actively having with another person (at work, at home, on the phone, or at a coffee shop) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required.
• Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not involved in falls outside the participant rule and carries felony exposure under federal law and potentially under § 23A-35A-20.
• Recording your own video content in a public space with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.

For a complete analysis of South Dakota's consent framework, see the South Dakota Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Surveillance Statutes

Separately from the conversation-consent rule, South Dakota law criminalizes surveillance of private places and nonconsensual intimate image recording.

SDCL § 22-21-1: Unlawful surveillance and trespass

Section 22-21-1 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to trespass on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place, or to install in any private place, without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, or recording, or to use such an unauthorized installation. A Class 1 misdemeanor in South Dakota carries up to one year in county jail and a fine of up to $2,000.

Smart glasses used to covertly record inside a private home, a locked office, or any other private place by entering without authorization directly implicate this statute. Separately, § 22-21-3 prohibits entering private property and peering in the door or window of any inhabited structure without lawful purpose, making observation through windows a Class 1 misdemeanor as well. The fact that the recording device looks like ordinary eyewear does not reduce the offense.

SDCL § 22-21-4: Prohibited recording

Section 22-21-4 prohibits intentionally using any device to photograph or visually record a person without clothing, or under or through their clothing, without that person's consent or knowledge and with intent to self-gratify or to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or harm that person. It also bars disseminating such a recording. The statute has no location element, so it can apply anywhere, including restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms.

A first violation of § 22-21-4 is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The offense escalates to a Class 6 felony, carrying up to two years imprisonment and a fine of up to $4,000, for any subsequent violation or when the victim is seventeen years of age or younger and the person committing the offense is at least twenty-one years of age. The current text also makes it a Class 5 felony to knowingly create or distribute, without the depicted person's consent or knowledge and with the same prohibited intent, digitally fabricated material depicting an identifiable person nude or in sexual conduct (SDCL § 22-21-4). A Class 6 felony conviction in South Dakota also carries collateral consequences including sex-offender registration eligibility depending on prosecutorial charging decisions.

Federal floor

Federal law adds a parallel baseline: 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. On federal land (national parks, federal courthouses, military installations), this statute applies in addition to SDCL § 22-21-4.

The covert appearance of smart glasses

The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to the voyeurism or surveillance prohibitions. Devices that look like ordinary eyewear may heighten the evidence of intentional concealment, which is relevant to the "without the consent or knowledge" element of § 22-21-4. Smart glasses that are used with the intent of avoiding detection while recording intimate or private matters face the strongest charging exposure under both statutes.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy

South Dakota 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).

As of June 2026, South Dakota has no law requiring written consent before capturing face geometry, no per-person statutory damages for unauthorized biometric scans, and no state-level biometric database enrollment restrictions. Using smart glasses with a facial recognition application in South Dakota does not expose a wearer to the same direct statutory-damages risk that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the same Attorney General enforcement posture that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI).

That does not mean South Dakota residents are 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 that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording itself is the intrusion, not the later publication of the footage.

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. South Dakota users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under South Dakota's stalking and harassment statutes.

If a South Dakota smart glasses user captures the face of a person who is a resident of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, 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.

Penalties Summary

Civil remedies for wiretap violations in South Dakota are available under federal law. Because South Dakota's own statute does not provide a private right of action, injured parties pursue claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which provides statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus any actual damages, the violator's profits, and attorney fees.

At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) also independently imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations, running parallel to South Dakota's Class 5 felony exposure for the same underlying conduct.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in South Dakota

Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. South Dakota'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 party and the rule applies. If you position the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the participant rule and face felony exposure under the federal Wiretap Act and potentially under § 23A-35A-20.

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. South Dakota 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. Meta's own guidance directs users to let the LED shine.

Disclose before sensitive meetings. South Dakota 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. The surveillance and prohibited-recording offenses under §§ 22-21-1 and 22-21-4 carry criminal penalties. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or any space where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation. The felony-level penalty for recording minor victims makes accidental violations extremely consequential.

Watch for cross-border calls. South Dakota's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in South Dakota. When either party to a call is in an all-party consent state, the stricter law of that state may apply. Minnesota, a bordering state, has nuanced recording rules; other regional neighbors like Nebraska and Iowa are one-party states. If you are in South Dakota but the other party is in an all-party consent state, that state's rule may govern. When in doubt, disclose or confirm the other party's location before recording.

Driving caution. No South Dakota 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 South Dakota Laws

• South Dakota Data Privacy Laws
• South Dakota Deepfake Laws
• South Dakota Drone Laws
• South Dakota Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is South Dakota a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?

South Dakota is a one-party consent state under SDCL § 23A-35A-20. Any party to an in-person, telephone, or electronic conversation may record it without notifying the other participants. No disclosure to the other party is required as long as you are genuinely part of the conversation.

Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in South Dakota without telling the other person?

Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. SDCL § 23A-35A-20 permits any party to a 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. The South Dakota statute has no purpose test, but the federal one-party exception does not apply to a recording made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in South Dakota?

Unlawfully intercepting an oral, wire, or electronic communication under SDCL § 23A-35A-20 is a Class 5 felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment in a state correctional facility and a fine of up to $10,000. South Dakota has no state civil remedy for wiretap violations, but injured parties may pursue federal civil claims under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for at least $10,000 in statutory damages.

Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in South Dakota?

In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. Trespassing to surveil someone in a private place, or installing a recording device in a private place without consent, is a Class 1 misdemeanor under SDCL § 22-21-1 (up to 1 year jail, $2,000 fine). Recording a person without clothing, or under or through clothing, without consent and with a prohibited intent is a Class 1 misdemeanor under § 22-21-4, escalating to a Class 6 felony for a subsequent violation or when the victim is seventeen years of age or younger and the perpetrator is at least twenty-one years of age. The covert appearance of smart glasses creates no exception.

Does South Dakota have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?

No. South Dakota has no dedicated biometric privacy statute as of June 2026. There are no per-person statutory damages for unauthorized face-geometry scans, unlike Illinois BIPA (up to $5,000 per violation). However, common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts apply regardless of any statute, and using facial recognition to identify individuals in Illinois, Texas, or Washington may trigger those states' biometric laws.

Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in South Dakota?

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 built-in capture LED provides an external recording indicator. South Dakota law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert, non-consensual recording intent.

Can I record police officers with smart glasses in South Dakota?

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 a sidewalk interaction, South Dakota's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces where you have no lawful right to be, and you must not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.

What happens if I record someone in a state with all-party consent laws?

If the other party to a recorded conversation is located in an all-party consent state (such as California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, or Washington), that state's stricter rule may govern the recording. South Dakota's one-party consent does not insulate you from another state's law. Disclosing the recording before it begins is the safest approach for any cross-border conversation.

Is there a civil lawsuit option for illegal recording in South Dakota?

South Dakota's wiretap statute does not provide its own private right of action. Injured parties must rely on federal civil remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which provides statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus actual damages, the violator's profits, and attorney fees. Common-law invasion-of-privacy torts are also available in South Dakota courts.

Does covering the LED on my Meta smart glasses make recording illegal in South Dakota?

South Dakota has no law specifically requiring the LED to remain uncovered. However, deliberately disabling or covering the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring, which strengthens evidence that the recording was covert and non-consensual. If the recording also lacks one-party consent (because you are not a participant in the conversation), covering the LED worsens the criminal exposure under state and federal wiretap law.