West Virginia
West 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 West Virginia, but recording with them is governed by the West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. Audio recording follows a one-party consent rule, and video in private spaces carries its own prohibition. Understanding how the two streams interact is the key to lawful use.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in West Virginia?
Yes. West Virginia has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely in the state and its possession raises no legal issue under West Virginia or federal law.
The legal analysis begins when the glasses are used to capture audio or video, and it depends on three factors: the content being recorded, the location, and whether you are a participant in any conversation being captured. West Virginia's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act governs the audio component. Separate state and federal provisions govern video capture in private spaces.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space, including streets, sidewalks, parks, shopping centers, and other areas generally accessible to the public, is lawful in West Virginia under both state and federal law. When a person is in 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 (2) is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception, and the statute's "aural transfer" requirement means silent video in public does not constitute an interception. West Virginia law aligns with this federal framework.
Smart glasses worn on a public sidewalk, at an outdoor event, or in a publicly accessible building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis changes materially in semi-public and private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, a closed meeting room, or a workplace that is not open to the general public carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant booth during a private conversation or a private office, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the context of observed conduct.
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. West Virginia courts apply the same general framework in evaluating whether a location or communication is "private" within the meaning of state surveillance statutes.
Smart glasses capture both audio and video simultaneously. When the glasses are used in a semi-private or private space, the video stream and the audio stream each trigger their own legal rules, and both must be satisfied independently.
Recording Audio and West Virginia's One-Party Consent Rule
The West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act
West Virginia's electronic surveillance framework is codified at W. Va. Code §§ 62-1D-1 through 62-1D-16. The act's short title appears at § 62-1D-1; definitions at § 62-1D-2; the core prohibition and consent exceptions at § 62-1D-3.
Section 62-1D-2 defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception." That language mirrors the federal Wiretap Act's definition at (2), anchoring the act's scope to conversations in which participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A loud exchange in a crowded public place where no one expects privacy is unlikely to qualify as an "oral communication" under this definition. A quiet conversation between colleagues in a private office, or a personal discussion at a restaurant table, almost certainly does.
The one-party consent exception: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3
Section 62-1D-3 establishes West Virginia's one-party consent rule. It provides that interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication is lawful when "the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception," so long as the interception is not for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law.
This is the classic one-party consent framework. If you are participating in a conversation, you may record it with smart glasses without notifying or obtaining consent from the other participants. The federal Wiretap Act ((2)(d)) contains the identical one-party exception as the federal floor, and West Virginia's statute aligns with that floor rather than exceeding it.
What the one-party rule does NOT cover
The one-party consent exception applies only when you are a genuine participant in the conversation being recorded. It does not permit:
- Recording a private conversation happening between two other people who are not speaking to you.
- Placing glasses on a table or windowsill to capture conversations in a room you have left.
- Recording the private communications of others in any context where you are not an active participant in that specific exchange.
A person who uses smart glasses to capture a private oral communication in which they have no part faces felony criminal exposure under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3. The one-party exception exists only because the recording party is themselves a party to the communication. Remove that participation and the exception disappears entirely.
The criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit
West Virginia's one-party rule, like the federal counterpart, does not protect recordings made for the purpose of committing a crime or a tortious act. A person who records a conversation in order to extort, harass, stalk, or defame the other participants cannot rely on the participant exception as a defense. The consent-based privilege is available only for lawful purposes.
For the full West Virginia audio consent framework, see the West Virginia Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Criminal Invasion of Privacy
Regardless of the one-party consent rule for audio, West Virginia law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.
W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 prohibits knowingly creating visual recordings of another person without that person's consent while they are partially or fully nude in a location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute uses broad language covering "any mechanical or electronic recording process or device" and does not carve out an exception for wearable technology. Smart glasses used to record a person's intimate areas or nudity in a restroom, locker room, gym changing area, fitting room, hotel room, or any other space where the person reasonably expects privacy from visual observation violates § 61-8-28.
The penalties under § 61-8-28 are:
- First offense: misdemeanor, up to one year in county or regional jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
- Second or subsequent offense: felony, 1 to 5 years in a state correctional facility, fines up to $10,000, or both.
The covert appearance of smart glasses is directly relevant to the non-consensual nature of any such recording. Glasses that look like ordinary eyewear provide no external signal that recording is occurring, which strengthens evidence that the recording was intentional and covert.
Federal law reinforces this prohibition. , the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent in locations where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation.
The prohibition on recording in these spaces is absolute. No consent from any person other than the person being observed can legalize the recording of another person's intimate activities in a private space.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
West Virginia 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 West Virginia state law alone, using a smart glasses 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.
West Virginia residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. The federal Wiretap Act, common-law privacy torts, and the state civil remedies under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12 still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, 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 regardless of whether a state biometric statute exists. The act of covert recording can create that liability without the footage ever being published or shared.
The biometric risk is highest through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera feed 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 of capturing a face. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. West Virginia users who replicate that type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the identified information is used for harassment or stalking, potential criminal exposure under West Virginia's criminal statutes. They may also face liability under the laws of the states where identified persons reside, particularly Illinois, Texas, or Washington.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of oral/wire/electronic communication | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(b) | Felony: up to 5 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Criminal invasion of privacy (voyeurism) - first offense | W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 | Misdemeanor: up to 1 year jail / up to $5,000 fine |
| Criminal invasion of privacy (voyeurism) - subsequent offense | W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 | Felony: 1-5 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Federal unlawful interception | Up to 5 years imprisonment |
Civil remedies under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12 allow a person whose communications were unlawfully intercepted to recover actual damages of not less than $100 for each day of violation, punitive damages where appropriate, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. A civil action under § 62-1D-12 is independent of any criminal prosecution; a victim may pursue both simultaneously.
At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages for unlawful interception.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in West Virginia
Know the public/private boundary. West Virginia's one-party consent rule is straightforward when you are recording a conversation you are part of in a public or semi-public setting. The exposure arises in private spaces. Before activating the camera in any enclosed or private setting, consider whether the persons present would reasonably expect not to be filmed.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. West Virginia law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearable devices, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the one visible signal that recording is occurring. Covering it while recording strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.
Remember you must be a participant. The one-party exception under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 applies only to conversations you are part of. You cannot record conversations between other people and invoke the participant exception. If you are not actively engaged in the exchange being captured, you are recording the private communications of others without their consent, which is a felony.
Never record in private spaces without consent. The prohibition on recording intimate conduct under W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 applies to smart glasses exactly as it applies to hidden cameras. Remove the glasses before entering restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, hotel rooms, or other spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation.
Disclose before recording in formal settings. Even though the one-party exception technically permits undisclosed audio recording of conversations you participate in, announcing the recording at the outset of any business meeting, interview, or formal discussion eliminates ambiguity and reduces civil exposure under intrusion-upon-seclusion theory. One sentence of disclosure at the start of a meeting covers the entire session.
Facial recognition adds risk. West Virginia has no biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software exposes you to common-law tort liability and potentially to the laws of states where identified persons reside, particularly Illinois, Texas, or Washington residents passing through West Virginia.
Driving caution. West Virginia's distracted-driving law (W. Va. Code § 17C-14-15) restricts the use of handheld wireless telecommunications devices while operating a motor vehicle. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no West Virginia statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable recording devices while driving. Navigation use is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video viewing while operating a vehicle raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic-device distraction and remains legally unsettled.
More West Virginia Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is West Virginia a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
West Virginia is a one-party consent state under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3. A participant in a wire, oral, or electronic communication may record it without notifying the other parties. The rule aligns with the federal one-party consent exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in West Virginia without telling the other person?
Yes, if you are a participant in the conversation. The one-party consent exception in W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 permits a party to record without disclosure. The exception does not apply if you are recording a conversation between other people you are not part of, or if you are recording for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in West Virginia?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because persons in public have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen. In private spaces where a person is partially or fully nude, recording without consent is a crime under W. Va. Code § 61-8-28, with misdemeanor penalties for a first offense and felony penalties for subsequent offenses. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in West Virginia?
Unlawful interception of an oral, wire, or electronic communication under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(b) is a felony: up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $10,000 in fines, or both. Criminal invasion of privacy under W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 is a misdemeanor on a first offense (up to 1 year jail, up to $5,000 fine) and a felony on a second or subsequent offense (1-5 years, up to $10,000 fine). Civil liability under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12 allows recovery of actual damages of not less than $100 per day of violation, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in West Virginia?
Yes, 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 includes a capture LED and advises compliance with local laws, but provides no legal guarantee. West Virginia's one-party consent rule means a participant may record without disclosure, but recording conversations you are not part of, or recording in private spaces where persons are nude, violates state law.
Does West Virginia have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
No. West Virginia has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in West Virginia does not trigger a state biometric statute, though common-law privacy torts still apply, and you may face liability under the laws of the state where an identified person resides.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in West Virginia?
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, the one-party consent exception under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 permits audio recording. Video recording in a public space is also generally lawful. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces and should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity during any recording.
What happens if I cover the recording LED on my Meta Ray-Ban glasses in West Virginia?
Covering the LED removes the only external signal that recording is occurring and strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent. West Virginia has no statute that specifically mandates indicator lights on wearable devices, but deliberately obscuring the LED is directly relevant to the intentional and non-consensual nature of any subsequent recording claim in a civil or criminal proceeding.
Can I sue someone who recorded me with smart glasses without my consent in West Virginia?
Yes. W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12 creates a civil cause of action for victims of unlawful interception, allowing recovery of actual damages of not less than $100 per day of violation, punitive damages where appropriate, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Common-law intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B is an additional civil theory that does not require the footage to have been published or shared.
Updates
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.
West Virginia Code
§ 17C-14-15Electronically Distracted Driving Act.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) Definitions — As used in this section: (1) “Smartwatch” means a wearable computer that provides a local touchscreen for daily use, associated with applications, and connected to a cellular or Wi-Fi network; (2) “Stand-alone electronic device” means a portable device other than a wireless telecommunications device which stores audio or video data files to be retrieved on demand by a user; (3) “Utility services” means and includes electric, natural gas, water, wastewater, cable, telephone, or telecommunications services, or the repair, location, relocation, improvement, or maintenance of utility poles, transmission structures, pipes, wires, fibers, cables, easements, rights-of-way, or associated infrastructure; (4) “Wireless telecommunications device” means one of the following portable devices: (A) A cellular telephone; (B) A portable telephone; (C) A text-messaging device; (D) A personal digital assistant; (E) A stand-alone computer including, but not limited to, a tablet, laptop, or notebook computer; (F) A handheld global positioning system receiver; (G) A device capable of displaying a video, movie, broadcast television image, or visual image; or (H) Any…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: West Virginia Windshield Mounting Laws
§ 61-8-28Criminal invasion of privacy; penalties.In forcecited in 27 of our articles
(a) For the purposes of this section, the words or terms defined in this subsection have the meanings ascribed to them. These definitions are applicable unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: (1) “A person fully or partially nude” means a male or female who is either clothed or unclothed so that: (A) All or any part of his or her genitals, pubic area or buttocks is visible; or (B) in the case of a female only, a part of a nipple of her breast is visible and is without a fully opaque covering; (2) “To visually portray” a person means to create a reproducible image of that person by means of: (A) A photograph; (B) A motion picture; (C) A video tape; (D) A digital recording; or (E) Any other mechanical or electronic recording process or device that can preserve, for later viewing, a visual image of a person; and (3) “Place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy” means a place where a reasonable person would believe that he or she could, in privacy, be fully or partially nude without expecting that the act of exposing his or her body was being visually portrayed by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2014
Leading cases:
- Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2010, 612 F.3d 736)“…8 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7507.1(e); Utah Code Ann. § 76-5a-2(6); W. Va. Code § 61-8-28(a)(1); Wis. Stat. § 942.08(1)(a). The m…”
- United States v. Thoms (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 2014)“…9-702.7 (West 2013); Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 13, § 2605 (2010); W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 (2000). 4 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide, West Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
§ 62-1D-1Short title.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act."
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: West Virginia AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 62-1D-12Civil liability; defense to civil or criminal action.In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, used or whose identity is disclosed in violation of this article shall have a civil cause of action against any person who so intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person or persons: (1) Actual damages, but not less than $100 for each day of violation; (2) Punitive damages, if found to be proper; and (3) Reasonable attorney fees and reasonable costs of litigation incurred. (b) A good faith reliance by a provider of electronic or wire communication services on a court order or legislative authorization constitutes a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this article or any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: West Virginia Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules and Consent Guide
§ 62-1D-2Definitions.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
As used in this article, unless the context in which used clearly requires otherwise, the following terms have the meanings indicated: (a) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, oral or electronic communication or a person against whom the interception was directed. (b) "Child care center" means a facility maintained by the state or any county or municipality thereof, or any agency or facility maintained by an individual, firm, corporation, association or organization, public or private, that is licensed by Bureau of Family Assistance for the care of children in any setting. (c) "Communications common carrier" means any telegraph company or telephone company and any radio common carrier. (d) "Contents" when used with respect to any wire, oral or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport or meaning of that communication. (e) "Electronic, mechanical or other device" means any device or apparatus: (i) Which can be used to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication; or (ii) the design of which renders it primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of any such communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases:
- Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…317 P.3d 1029, 1034 (Wash. 2014) (en banc) West Virginia: W. Va. Code §§ 62-1D-2(i), 62-1D-3(a)(1), (e); West Virginia v…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 62-1D-3Interception of communications generally.In forcecited in 36 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this article it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept or procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, oral or electronic communication; or (2) Intentionally disclose or intentionally attempt to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this article; and (3) Intentionally use or disclose or intentionally attempt to use or disclose the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication or the identity of any party thereto, knowing or having reason to know that such information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this article. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not more than five years or fined not more than $10,000 or both fined and imprisoned.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 1999
Leading cases:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1999, 200 F.3d 109)“…77 -23a-4, 77-23a-11; Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.2-62 , 19.2-69; W. Va.Code §§ 62-1D-3, 62-1D-12; Wis. Stat. § 968.31 ; Wyo.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
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: Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 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
- W. Va. Code § 62-1D-1. Short title of the West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act.(code.wvlegislature.gov)
- W. Va. Code § 62-1D-2. Definitions. Defines 'oral communication' as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception. Defines 'intercept' and 'electronic communication.'(code.wvlegislature.gov)
- W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3. One-party consent rule. Interception is lawful when the person is a party to the communication or one party has given prior consent, provided interception is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Criminal penalty: felony, up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $10,000 fine.(code.wvlegislature.gov)
- W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12. Civil remedies for unlawful interception. Victims may recover actual damages of not less than $100 per day of violation, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.(code.wvlegislature.gov)
- W. Va. Code § 61-8-28. Criminal invasion of privacy (video voyeurism). Prohibits knowingly creating visual recordings of another person without consent while that person is partially or fully nude in a location with a reasonable expectation of privacy. First offense: misdemeanor, up to 1 year jail and $5,000 fine. Second or subsequent offense: felony, 1-5 years and $10,000 fine.(code.wvlegislature.gov)
- West Virginia Recording Laws. recordinglaw.com parent page covering the full WV Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act consent framework, statute text, and penalty analysis.(recordinglaw.com)
- 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: at least $10,000 statutory damages per violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2). Definition of 'oral communication.' An aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public is not a federal wiretap violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation.(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. Cited for device facts only.(meta.com)