Virginia
Virginia Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Virginia, and the state's one-party consent rule means you can record audio of any conversation you are participating in without notifying the other party. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful under both state and federal law. The legal lines are drawn at covert audio recording of conversations you are not part of, recording intimate areas without consent in private locations, and using the glasses with facial-recognition software in ways that trigger Virginia's biometric data obligations under the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Virginia?
Yes. Virginia 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 commonwealth and its possession raises no legal issue under Virginia or federal law.
The legal analysis starts only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. At that point, the relevant questions are: What is being captured? Where is the recording taking place? Are you a party to any conversation being recorded? The answers to those questions determine whether Virginia law creates any exposure.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Virginia under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, shopping center, or government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2510(2), (18)) defines an "oral communication" as an aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy against interception. Silent video capture in a public space does not meet that definition. Virginia's own wiretap statute (Va. Code 19.2-62) similarly targets the interception of wire and oral communications, not video observation in public.
This means smart glasses worn while walking on a Richmond sidewalk, visiting the National Mall in Washington D.C. (federal property), attending an outdoor market in Charlottesville, or recording inside a public government building generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis shifts once the glasses move into semi-public or private spaces. A private home, hotel room, medical examination room, or closed-door workplace conference room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant booth during a one-on-one conversation or a break room at work, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the spoken content of words exchanged there.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan's concurring opinion described a twofold requirement: the person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Virginia courts apply this same framework to determine whether a space or conversation is "private" for purposes of the wiretap and voyeurism statutes.
Recording inside private places
Using smart glasses to covertly video-record someone inside a private location, such as a home, a hotel room, or a medical office, can violate Virginia's voyeurism and unlawful-filming statutes even before the audio component is considered. The key principle is that covert video recording in a space where a person reasonably expects not to be observed is treated as a serious criminal matter under Virginia law, not a technical compliance question.
Recording Audio and Virginia's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the central legal issue for smart glasses users in Virginia, and Virginia law is clear and relatively straightforward.
Va. Code 19.2-62: Virginia's wiretap statute
Virginia's primary statute governing audio recording is Va. Code 19.2-62, which prohibits the willful interception of any wire or oral communication by means of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. The statute mirrors the structure of the federal Wiretap Act and contains the same one-party consent exception: interception is lawful when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.
Because the person wearing and operating the smart glasses is a party to any conversation they are participating in, they satisfy the consent requirement themselves. Virginia law does not require the wearer to notify or obtain permission from the other party before recording a conversation the wearer is part of.
What one-party consent means for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Virginia, the one-party rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a coffee shop, in a business meeting, at a job interview, on a walk through a neighborhood, or during a personal exchange is lawful. You are a participant. Virginia law does not require you to disclose the recording.
- Recording your own interactions with police officers in a public encounter is lawful under the same principle. You are a party to the exchange, and the officer's conduct in a public setting generally carries no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party to that conversation. Secretly capturing someone else's discussion when you are not participating is a criminal violation of Va. Code 19.2-62.
Federal alignment
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) provides the same one-party consent baseline at the federal level. Virginia's rule is consistent with the federal minimum, so a Virginia participant who records their own conversations is protected under both state and federal law simultaneously.
For a full analysis of Virginia's consent framework, see the Virginia Recording Laws page.
Conversations you are not part of
Virginia's one-party consent rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two people are having a private conversation nearby and you are not involved, you cannot lawfully point your smart glasses at them and record their exchange. Doing so without at least one party's consent is a Class 6 felony under Va. Code 19.2-62, which carries one to five years imprisonment, or at the court's discretion, up to 12 months confinement in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Filming in Virginia
Regardless of the audio consent rules, Virginia law absolutely prohibits using any device, including smart glasses, to record intimate body parts in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation. The one-party consent rule does not override these prohibitions.
Va. Code 18.2-386.1: Unlawful filming, videotaping, or photographing
Va. Code 18.2-386.1 prohibits knowingly and intentionally creating videographic or still images of a nonconsenting person under two scenarios:
First, the statute applies when the person is totally nude, wearing undergarments, or undressed in a manner that exposes genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts in a private location. Second, it applies when the recording device is positioned in a way that captures intimate areas that would not otherwise be visible, such as aiming a camera upward from beneath clothing.
The penalty structure is:
- First offense: Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
- Two or more prior convictions within the preceding 10 years (for offenses on different dates, not part of a common act, transaction, or scheme): Class 6 felony, carrying one to five years imprisonment, or up to 12 months jail and a $2,500 fine.
- Involving a minor under 18: Class 6 felony, even on a first offense.
A single prior conviction does not trigger the felony; a second offense by someone with only one prior conviction remains a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Locations where recording is always prohibited
The locations where Va. Code 18.2-386.1 most clearly applies include:
- Restrooms and public bathrooms
- Locker rooms and gym changing areas
- Fitting rooms in retail stores
- Private residences
- Hotel and motel rooms
- Tanning facilities
- Bedrooms and any other location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed undressed
The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The concealed nature of the recording can in fact strengthen a prosecution because it demonstrates deliberate concealment of a device in a location where the subject would not expect to be filmed.
Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Virginia has extensive federal property within its borders, including military bases, federal office buildings, and national parks, making this federal provision particularly relevant.
The rule is absolute: no consent framework, no location argument, and no device novelty can legalize recording someone's private body in a space where they reasonably expect not to be observed.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in Virginia
Virginia does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). However, Virginia's comprehensive privacy law addresses biometric data as a category of sensitive information.
Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act
The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA), Va. Code 59.1-575 et seq., defines "sensitive data" to include the processing of biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person. Biometric data under the VCDPA means data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, or other unique biological patterns used to identify a specific individual. Photographs, videos, and audio recordings alone are not biometric data under the statute; the trigger is when those inputs are processed to extract identifying biological patterns.
Under Va. Code 59.1-578, the VCDPA requires controllers, meaning entities that determine the purposes and means of processing personal data, to obtain consent (a clear affirmative act) from consumers before processing sensitive data. Under Va. Code 59.1-576, the Act applies only to businesses that control or process the personal data of at least 100,000 Virginia consumers per year, or that derive over 50 percent of gross revenue from selling personal data and process the data of at least 25,000 consumers.
For most individual smart glasses users, the VCDPA's controller thresholds will not be met. However, a business deploying smart-glasses-based facial recognition to identify customers or employees at scale in Virginia could trigger VCDPA consent obligations.
The I-XRAY risk
In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated "I-XRAY": a system combining Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses with PimEyes, a reverse facial-recognition search engine, and AI to identify strangers in real time, retrieving home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. The students used third-party software; Meta's glasses provided only the camera feed.
A Virginia user who replicates this type of integration faces civil tort liability under common-law intrusion upon seclusion (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B) regardless of whether the VCDPA's business thresholds apply. The act of intentionally scanning and identifying a person without their knowledge, in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person, creates civil exposure even without a state biometric statute applying directly.
The three dedicated biometric states
Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), Texas (CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375) have the three dedicated biometric statutes most relevant to smart-glasses facial recognition. If you use your Virginia-purchased smart glasses in Illinois, you are immediately subject to BIPA's requirements, which carry statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person for capturing face geometry without prior written consent. Unlike Virginia, Illinois grants a private right of action to every affected individual.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful audio interception (non-participant) | Va. Code 19.2-62 | Class 6 felony | 1-5 years imprisonment, or up to 12 months jail / $2,500 fine |
| Unlawful filming / voyeurism (first offense) | Va. Code 18.2-386.1 | Class 1 misdemeanor | Up to 12 months jail / $2,500 fine |
| Unlawful filming involving a minor, or with two or more prior convictions in 10 years | Va. Code 18.2-386.1 | Class 6 felony | 1-5 years imprisonment, or up to 12 months jail / $2,500 fine |
| Federal Wiretap Act violation | 18 U.S.C. § 2511 | Federal criminal | Up to 5 years imprisonment / at least $10,000 civil damages |
| Federal Video Voyeurism (federal property) | 18 U.S.C. § 1801 | Federal criminal | Separate federal penalties apply |
Virginia treats the unauthorized interception of audio as a felony from the first offense, making it one of the stricter one-party consent states in terms of the penalty attached to a violation. A person who uses smart glasses to record audio of a private conversation they are not part of faces felony exposure, not merely a misdemeanor, under Virginia law.
Virginia also recognizes a civil cause of action under the Virginia Wiretap Act for persons aggrieved by unlawful interception. In addition, common-law privacy torts recognized in Virginia, including intrusion upon seclusion (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B), can apply to covert recording in semi-private contexts even if the recording is never published or shared.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Virginia
You can record your own conversations. Virginia's one-party consent rule means that as long as you are a genuine participant in the conversation, you may record it without disclosing that you are doing so. You do not need the other person's agreement, and Virginia law imposes no disclosure requirement on participants.
Keep the capture LED visible. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Meta upgraded the LED in size and brightness specifically in response to privacy concerns. Virginia law does not currently mandate a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering or obscuring the LED removes the one external signal that recording is occurring. In any legal dispute over covert recording intent, evidence that you covered the indicator can be used against you.
Disclose before recording formal settings. Even though Virginia law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of a business negotiation, employment interview, medical appointment, or legal consultation eliminates any ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely. The disclosure does not need to be elaborate; a simple statement that the meeting is being recorded is sufficient.
Never record in private spaces. The prohibitions under Va. Code 18.2-386.1 are absolute. Remove or deactivate the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, fitting rooms, hotel rooms, or any other location where persons have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body.
Do not record others' conversations. Virginia's one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders or observers. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, you cannot lawfully record it without at least one party's consent. Doing so is a Class 6 felony.
Facial recognition adds risk even in Virginia. Virginia's VCDPA imposes biometric processing obligations on businesses above specified thresholds. Even below those thresholds, using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify strangers creates common-law tort exposure under intrusion upon seclusion. If the person you identify is located in or a resident of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you may face liability under those states' more stringent biometric statutes regardless of where the recording occurs.
Virginia has extensive federal property. The commonwealth is home to military installations, federal agencies, national parks, and federal courts. Recording on federal property triggers 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (voyeurism on federal property) in addition to Virginia state law. Always be aware of whether you are on state or federal land, particularly in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
Driving. Virginia's reckless driving and distracted-driving statutes address handheld device use while driving. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Virginia statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while operating a motor vehicle. Navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device. Using smart glasses to stream live video, manage social media, or conduct other non-driving activities while operating a vehicle raises distracted-driving exposure and remains legally unsettled under current Virginia law.
More Virginia Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Virginia a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Virginia is a one-party consent state. Under Va. Code 19.2-62, a participant in a conversation may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from the other party. Recording a conversation you are not part of requires at least one party's consent to that conversation.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Virginia without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Virginia's one-party consent rule means you do not need to disclose the recording or obtain the other person's agreement. The only condition is that you are actually participating in the conversation being recorded, not merely nearby or listening in.
Can I secretly film someone with my smart glasses in Virginia?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being seen. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, or hotel rooms, recording intimate body parts without consent violates Va. Code 18.2-386.1 and is a Class 1 misdemeanor, escalating to a Class 6 felony when a minor is involved or when the offender has two or more prior convictions under the statute within the preceding 10 years.
What are the penalties for illegal audio recording in Virginia?
Unlawful interception of audio as a non-participant is a Class 6 felony under Va. Code 19.2-62, carrying one to five years imprisonment, or at the court's discretion, up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) adds up to 5 years imprisonment and at least $10,000 in civil statutory damages per unlawful interception.
Does Virginia have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?
Virginia does not have a standalone biometric statute like Illinois BIPA. The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act defines biometric data processed to uniquely identify a person as sensitive data (Va. Code 59.1-575), and Va. Code 59.1-578 requires covered controllers to obtain consumer consent before processing it. The VCDPA applies only to businesses that control or process data of at least 100,000 Virginia consumers in a calendar year, or at least 25,000 consumers while deriving over 50 percent of gross revenue from selling personal data (Va. Code 59.1-576); individual users are generally below that threshold, but common-law privacy torts still apply.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Virginia?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in Virginia. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture audio of. Meta's capture LED provides external notice of recording, and deliberately covering it can be used as evidence of covert recording intent in a dispute.
Can I record a police officer with my smart glasses in Virginia?
Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter such as a traffic stop, checkpoint, or street interaction, Virginia's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording without disclosure. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity while recording.
Does covering the recording LED on my smart glasses create legal problems in Virginia?
Covering the LED is not itself a Virginia crime under current law, but it removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. In any legal dispute over covert recording, evidence that you deliberately covered the indicator light can be used to establish non-consensual recording intent. California SB 1130 would have criminalized LED cover-ups in that state, but the Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so no such rule took effect and California recording remains governed by its all-party consent law.
Can I record inside a government building in Virginia with smart glasses?
Video recording in publicly accessible areas of government buildings is generally lawful. Many courthouses, state offices, and federal buildings have their own rules posted at the entrance that restrict photography or recording inside. Always check posted rules or ask a building officer before recording inside a government facility, particularly in the many federal facilities throughout Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads where both state and federal law may apply.
Updates
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, where it appears.
Corrected when unlawful filming becomes a felony in Virginia (a minor victim, or two or more prior convictions within 10 years) and cited the correct Consumer Data Protection Act sections for the sensitive-data consent requirement and the Act's applicability thresholds.
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.
Code of Virginia, Title 19.2: Criminal Procedure
§ 19.2-62Interception, disclosure, etc., of wire, electronic or oral communications unlawful; penalties; exceptionsIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who: 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 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; 3. Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or 4. Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. B. 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts read Section 19.2-62 in step with the federal wiretap act. Global Policy Partners, LLC v. Yessin (2009) held that accessing email stored on a destination server is not an intercept, and Wilks v. Commonwealth (1977) held a conversation police recorded through a cooperating coconspirator was not a protected oral communication.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Belmer v. Commonwealth (Court of Appeals of Virginia 2001, 36 Va. App. 448)✓A juvenile arrested for robbery whispered to his mother's boyfriend in a police interview room while a detective listened in; the court found no reasonable expectation of privacy, so Chapter 6, which carries the Section 19.2-62 ban, did not bar the detective's testimony.
- Wilks v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court of Virginia 1977, 217 Va. 885)✓An arson conspirator agreed to be wired and drew the defendant into a taped shop-talk about the fires; the court held the defendant had no justifiable expectation of noninterception, so the talk was not an oral communication protected by Chapter 6 and the tape was admissible.
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…16.02 (Supp. 2001); Utah Code Ann. § 77 23a4 (1982); Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62 (1995); W. Va. Code § 62 -1D-3 (2000)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Interstate Calls, Virginia AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
Code of Virginia, Title 18.2: Crimes and Offenses Generally
§ 18.2-386.1Unlawful creation of image of another; penaltyIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally create any videographic or still image by any means whatsoever of any nonconsenting person if (i) that person is (a) totally nude; (b) clad in undergarments; (c) in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast; or (d) not exposed to show the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast but such videographic or still image is obscene, as defined in § 18.2-372, when such nonconsenting person is in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom, or other location; or (ii) the videographic or still image is created by placing the lens or image-gathering component of the recording device in a position directly beneath or between a person's legs for the purpose of capturing an image of the person's intimate parts or undergarments covering those intimate parts when the intimate parts or undergarments would not otherwise be visible to the general public; and when the circumstances set forth in clause (i) or (ii) are otherwise such that the person being recorded would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Virginia Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Virginia Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 18.2-10Punishment for conviction of felony; penaltyIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
The authorized punishments for conviction of a felony are: (a) For Class 1 felonies, imprisonment for life and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000. Any person who was 18 years of age or older at the time of the offense and who is sentenced to imprisonment for life upon conviction of a Class 1 felony shall not be eligible for (i) parole, (ii) any good conduct allowance or any earned sentence credits under Chapter 6 (§ 53.1-186 et seq.) of Title 53.1, or (iii) conditional release pursuant to § 53.1-40.01 or 53.1-40.02. (b) For Class 2 felonies, imprisonment for life or for any term not less than 20 years and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000. (c) For Class 3 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 20 years and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000. (d) For Class 4 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than 10 years and, subject to subdivision (g), a fine of not more than $100,000.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 46 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Roper v. Simmons (Supreme Court of the United States 2005, 543 U.S. 551)“…minimum age) *580 Virginia Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-10 (a) (Lexis 2004) (minimum age…”
- Coker v. Georgia (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 584)“…5); Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-2402 , 39-2406, 39-3702 (1975); Va. Code Ann. §§ 18.2-10 , 18.2-31 (1975). Brief for Respondent…”
- Sumner v. Shuman (Supreme Court of the United States 1987, 483 U.S. 66)“…Tit. 21, §§ 701.7, 701.9 to 701.15 (1981 and Supp. 1986); Va. Code §§ 18.2-10(a) and 18.2-31(c) (1975), amended and c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Hit and Run Laws in the United States (2026 Guide), Virginia Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 18.2-11Punishment for conviction of misdemeanorIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
The authorized punishments for conviction of a misdemeanor are: (a) For Class 1 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both. (b) For Class 2 misdemeanors, confinement in jail for not more than six months and a fine of not more than $1,000, either or both. (c) For Class 3 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $500. (d) For Class 4 misdemeanors, a fine of not more than $250. For a misdemeanor offense prohibiting proximity to children as described in subsection A of § 18.2-370.2, the sentencing court is authorized to impose the punishment set forth in subsection B of that section in addition to any other penalty provided by law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. White (Virginia Circuit Court 2002, 58 Va. Cir. 154)“…meanors carry a possible sentence of twelve months in jail. Va. Code § 18.2-11(a). Upon discovery of this violation…”
- Virginia v. Moore (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 164)“…le under Virginia law by a year in jail and a $2,500 fine, Va. Code Ann. §§18.2-11 (Lexis 2004), 18.2-272 (Supp. 2007), 4…”
- Richard Weidman v. Exxon Mobil Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2015, 776 F.3d 214)“…months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.” Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-11(a).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Virginia Window Tint Laws (2026): Legal VLT Limits, Virginia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Code of Virginia, Title 59.1: Trade and Commerce
§ 59.1-575DefinitionsIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Affiliate" means a legal entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another legal entity or shares common branding with another legal entity. For the purposes of this definition, "control" or "controlled" means (i) ownership of, or the power to vote, more than 50 percent of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of a company; (ii) control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors or of individuals exercising similar functions; or (iii) the power to exercise controlling influence over the management of a company. "Authenticate" means verifying through reasonable means that the consumer, entitled to exercise his consumer rights in § 59.1-577, is the same consumer exercising such consumer rights with respect to the personal data at issue. "Biometric data" means data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that is used to identify a specific individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026), VCDPA Compliance Checklist for Businesses (2026), What Is the VCDPA? Virginia's Data Privacy Law Explained
§ 59.1-576Scope; exemptionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
A. This chapter applies to persons that conduct business in the Commonwealth or produce products or services that are targeted to residents of the Commonwealth and that (i) during a calendar year, control or process personal data of at least 100,000 consumers or (ii) control or process personal data of at least 25,000 consumers and derive over 50 percent of gross revenue from the sale of personal data. B. This chapter shall not apply to any (i) body, authority, board, bureau, commission, district, or agency of the Commonwealth or of any political subdivision of the Commonwealth; (ii) financial institution or data subject to Title V of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.); (iii) covered entity or business associate governed by the privacy, security, and breach notification rules issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 established pursuant to HIPAA, and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (P.L. 111-5); (iv) nonprofit organization; or (v) institution of higher education. C. The following information and data is exempt from this chapter: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Also relied on in: Virginia Data Privacy Laws: VCDPA Consumer Rights Guide (2026)
§ 59.1-578Data controller responsibilities; transparencyIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
A. A controller shall: 1. Limit the collection of personal data to what is adequate, relevant, and reasonably necessary in relation to the purposes for which such data is processed, as disclosed to the consumer; 2. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, not process personal data for purposes that are neither reasonably necessary to nor compatible with the disclosed purposes for which such personal data is processed, as disclosed to the consumer, unless the controller obtains the consumer's consent; 3. Establish, implement, and maintain reasonable administrative, technical, and physical data security practices to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and accessibility of personal data. Such data security practices shall be appropriate to the volume and nature of the personal data at issue; 4. Not process personal data in violation of state and federal laws that prohibit unlawful discrimination against consumers.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Va. Code 19.2-62 (Interception of wire, electronic or oral communications). Virginia's primary wiretap statute. Establishes one-party consent rule; non-participant interception is a Class 6 felony carrying one to five years imprisonment or up to 12 months jail and a $2,500 fine.(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 18.2-386.1 (Unlawful filming, videotaping or photographing of another). Prohibits recording intimate body parts without consent in locations with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Class 1 misdemeanor for first offense; Class 6 felony for repeat offenses or cases involving minors under 18.(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 18.2-10 (Punishment for conviction of felony). Class 6 felony: one to five years imprisonment, or at the court's discretion, up to 12 months confinement in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 18.2-11 (Punishment for conviction of misdemeanor). Class 1 misdemeanor: up to 12 months confinement in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 59.1-575 (Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act - definitions). Classifies biometric data processed to uniquely identify a natural person as sensitive data. Requires controllers to obtain opt-in consent before processing sensitive data. Applies to businesses processing data of 100,000 or more Virginia consumers per year.(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d). Criminal penalty up to 5 years imprisonment; civil liability of at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2), (18) (Definitions - oral communication and aural transfer). Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public is not an interception under the federal Wiretap Act.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act). Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Particularly relevant in Virginia given the density of federal installations.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system, Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine and stop recording if asked, and Meta's instruction to obey applicable law.(meta.com)
- Va. Code 59.1-578: Data controller responsibilities; transparency(law.lis.virginia.gov)
- Va. Code 59.1-576: Scope; exemptions(law.lis.virginia.gov)