Wisconsin
Wisconsin 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. · 1 primary source cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Wisconsin, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c), you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act or any other injurious act. Recording in private spaces where people expect visual privacy is a separate criminal offense regardless of consent.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Wisconsin?
Yes. Wisconsin has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin under both state and federal law. When a person is in public (on a street, sidewalk, in a park, or in any location generally accessible to the public), they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act defines "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger that statute. Wisconsin law tracks this same principle.
The pivotal question is whether the subject of a recording has a reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed. Under Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967), that test requires both an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. People walking on a public sidewalk, attending an outdoor market, or visiting a state park have no reasonable expectation of privacy from being filmed. Smart glasses worn in those settings generally create no legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, or a closed meeting room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces 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.
Recording in these semi-public environments raises two independent legal concerns for a smart glasses wearer: the audio consent issue under § 968.31 and the visual privacy issue under §§ 942.08 and 942.09. Both must be considered together whenever the glasses are used outside a genuinely open public setting.
Recording in private places
Wis. Stat. § 942.08 criminalizes the knowing installation or use of a surveillance device to observe a nude or partially nude person in a private place without consent. It also prohibits using any device to look into private areas of public accommodations such as restrooms or dressing rooms, entering another person's property to observe them through a dwelling window for sexual gratification, and recording under a person's clothing to capture genitals, buttocks, or breasts without consent. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone inside their home, a locker room, a medical office, or any other private space directly implicates that statute alongside the wiretap prohibition.
Recording Audio and Wisconsin's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Wisconsin.
The statute: Wis. Stat. § 968.31
Wisconsin's Electronic Surveillance Control Law is codified at Wis. Stat. § 968.31. Section 968.31(1) sets out the general prohibition: it is a Class H felony to intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, unless a specific statutory exception applies.
Section 968.31(2)(c) provides the one-party consent exception for private individuals: it is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law who is a party to the communication, or who has the prior consent of one of the parties, to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act. This tracks the language of the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) but operates as an independent Wisconsin state law applicable to all in-state recordings regardless of whether a communication crosses state lines.
In practice, a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation (an employee speaking with a supervisor, a consumer on the phone with a business, a person having an in-person discussion with a colleague) may lawfully record that conversation in Wisconsin without disclosing the recording to the other participants.
Wisconsin's "criminal or tortious purpose" limitation
Wisconsin's one-party exception includes a meaningful limitation. The exception does not apply when the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act, or any other injurious act. This means that if the purpose of the recording is to facilitate blackmail, to stalk someone, to gather leverage for extortion, or to support a defamation campaign, the one-party exception does not apply and the recording becomes a Class H felony.
This purpose carve-out is significant for smart glasses users. The covert, wearable nature of the device and the fact that it looks like ordinary eyewear can be treated as circumstantial evidence of intent when a prosecutor or civil plaintiff argues that the recording was made to harm someone. Maintaining a lawful purpose for any recording is as important as being a genuine participant in the conversation.
What one-party consent does not cover
The one-party exception applies only when the recorder is a genuine participant in the communication being captured. It does not protect:
- Using smart glasses to record a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of.
- Secretly capturing oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be.
- Recording with the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act, or any other injurious act, against another person.
Recording private conversations of others without participation is an unlawful interception under § 968.31(1) and a Class H felony.
Civil vs. criminal proceedings: the telephone-recording admissibility rule
Wisconsin's one-party consent rule under § 968.31 governs the criminal interception statute; making the recording is lawful if you are a participant. Whether that recording can be used as evidence is a separate question. For telephone-conversation recordings specifically, Wisconsin has a real, specific admissibility rule: Wis. Stat. § 885.365 makes a recorded telephone conversation totally inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action unless the person being recorded was told, at the time, that the call was being recorded and that the recording might be used in a court proceeding. This is a notice-and-admissibility rule tied to telephone calls, not an all-party consent requirement, and it applies independent of whether the recording was otherwise lawful to make under § 968.31. Recordings of in-person conversations are not governed by § 885.365. Anyone planning to use a telephone recording as evidence in a Wisconsin civil, family-law, or administrative proceeding should confirm the required notice was given, or consult a Wisconsin attorney before relying on it.
Practical application
For a smart glasses wearer in Wisconsin, the one-party consent rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone (at work, at home, over the phone, or in a restaurant) is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required.
- Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in is unlawful.
- Recording your own video content in public with no conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.
For a complete analysis of Wisconsin's consent framework, see the Wisconsin Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Wis. Stat. §§ 942.08 and 942.09
Regardless of consent rules, Wisconsin law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct. Smart glasses are treated identically to any other recording device in these contexts.
Invasion of privacy: Wis. Stat. § 942.08
Wisconsin's invasion-of-privacy statute prohibits four distinct categories of conduct:
Surveillance in private places under § 942.08(2)(a): knowingly installing or using a surveillance device to observe a nude or partially nude person in a private place without their consent. The penalties escalate based on the presence of a minor victim. A basic first-offense violation is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 9 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000). When the victim is under 18 years of age, the offense is a Class I felony (up to 3.5 years and a fine of up to $10,000).
Voyeurism in public accommodations under § 942.08(2)(b): looking into private areas of public accommodations (restrooms, dressing rooms, and similar spaces) for sexual arousal or gratification without the consent of those present.
Trespassing to observe under § 942.08(2)(d): entering another person's property or common areas of multi-unit dwellings to observe occupants through a window or door for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and does not consent.
Upskirt and downblouse recording under § 942.08(3): using any device to intentionally view, broadcast, or record under a person's outer clothing to capture genitals, buttocks, breasts, or pubic area without consent. Unlike the Class A misdemeanor base offenses in subsection (2), this conduct is a Class I felony.
Capturing intimate representations: Wis. Stat. § 942.09
Wisconsin's intimate-representation statute provides a second layer of criminal liability specifically addressing the capture of visual depictions of intimate content.
Section 942.09(2)(am)1 makes it a Class I felony to capture an intimate representation of a person without that person's consent under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. An "intimate representation" is defined to include nude or partially nude depictions, clothed genitalia or buttocks not otherwise visible, persons using bathroom facilities or hygiene products, and persons engaged in sexual conduct or contact.
The statute extends to the reproduction, possession, distribution, and exhibition of intimate representations known to have been non-consensually captured, all of which are Class I felony offenses. Posting synthetic intimate representations to coerce, harass, or intimidate a person is separately criminalized as a Class I felony. When the victim is a minor, certain locker-room violations escalate to Class H felonies.
Locations where recording is absolutely prohibited
The prohibition applies most clearly in restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. These are locations where persons have an unambiguous reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. Smart glasses in these spaces are treated identically to any other recording device under both §§ 942.08 and 942.09.
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.
The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception to the voyeurism prohibition. A device designed to look like ordinary eyewear may actually heighten evidence of intentional concealment, which is directly relevant to the "knowing" and "intentional" mental-state elements of §§ 942.08 and 942.09.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not expose a person to the direct statutory-damages liability that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the AG-enforcement risk that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI). That said, Wisconsin residents are not 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 highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion; publication is not required.
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. Wisconsin users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under Wisconsin's stalking and intimidation statutes.
If a Wisconsin smart glasses user captures the face of an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording physically occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition in Wisconsin.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(1) | Class H felony | 6 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Surveillance of nude/partially nude person in private place | Wis. Stat. § 942.08(2)(a) | Class A misdemeanor | 9 months / up to $10,000 fine |
| Surveillance of nude/partially nude person (minor victim) | Wis. Stat. §§ 942.08(2)(a) and (4) | Class I felony | 3.5 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Recording under clothing (upskirt/downblouse) | Wis. Stat. § 942.08(3) | Class I felony | 3.5 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Capturing intimate representation without consent (device, private space) | Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)1 | Class I felony | 3.5 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Non-consensual distribution of intimate representation (adult victim) | Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(am)3 | Class I felony | 3.5 years / up to $10,000 fine |
| Non-consensual distribution of intimate representation (minor victim) | Wis. Stat. § 942.09(2)(dr) | Class H felony | 6 years / up to $10,000 fine |
Civil remedies under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2m) are independent of criminal prosecution. A plaintiff whose communication was unlawfully intercepted may recover actual damages (subject to a floor of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $1,000), plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees.
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 each unlawful interception.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Wisconsin
Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Wisconsin's one-party consent rule under § 968.31(2)(c) 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 participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the exception and face Class H felony exposure.
Keep the purpose lawful. The criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out in § 968.31(2)(c) means the one-party exception does not shield recordings made to extort, stalk, defame, or harass another person. If the reason you are recording could be characterized as harming the other party rather than protecting a legitimate interest, reconsider whether to record at all.
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. Wisconsin 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 covert non-consensual recording intent if a dispute arises under §§ 942.08 or 942.09.
Disclose before sensitive meetings. Wisconsin 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, a family-law proceeding) eliminates 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 prohibitions under §§ 942.08 and 942.09 on recording intimate areas in private locations are absolute. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or any other space where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. Penalties include Class I felony charges carrying up to 3.5 years imprisonment, with enhanced exposure when a minor is involved.
Watch for cross-border calls. Wisconsin's one-party consent rule governs calls where both parties are in Wisconsin. When either party to a call is located in an all-party consent state, the stricter law of the other state may apply. Illinois, a neighboring state, requires all-party consent under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. If you are in Wisconsin but the other party is in Illinois, their all-party requirement may govern. When in doubt, disclose or confirm the other party's location before recording.
Plan carefully for civil and family proceedings. If you record a phone conversation in Wisconsin with the intent to use it in litigation or a family-court proceeding, tell the other party at the time that the call is being recorded and may be used in court. Wis. Stat. § 885.365 makes an undisclosed telephone recording totally inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action, regardless of whether making the recording itself was lawful under § 968.31(2)(c). Consult a Wisconsin attorney before relying on any recording, telephone or in-person, as evidence.
Driving caution. No Wisconsin 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 Wisconsin Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Wisconsin a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Wisconsin is a one-party consent state under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c). If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. The exception does not apply if the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, or any other injurious act.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Wisconsin without telling the other person?
Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) permits a party to the 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, and the purpose of the recording must not be criminal or tortious.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Wisconsin?
Unlawfully intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication under Wis. Stat. § 968.31(1) is a Class H felony, carrying up to 6 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. Civil remedies under § 968.31(2m) separately allow a plaintiff to recover actual damages (minimum $100 per day or $1,000), punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Wisconsin?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. In private spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, private residences, and medical offices), recording nude or intimate images is a crime under Wis. Stat. §§ 942.08 and 942.09. Penalties range from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class I felony (up to 3.5 years imprisonment). The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception.
Does Wisconsin have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?
Wisconsin has no dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois BIPA or Texas CUBI. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Wisconsin does not carry the same direct per-person statutory damages risk that exists in Illinois. However, common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts still apply, and if an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident's face is captured, those states' laws may reach the conduct.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in Wisconsin?
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 capture LED provides an external recording indicator. Wisconsin law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent.
What happens if I record someone in Wisconsin who is in Illinois?
Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2) is an all-party consent state. When a call or conversation includes a participant located in Illinois, that state's stricter rule may govern the recording. Wisconsin's one-party consent does not insulate you from another state's law if the other party is in an all-party state. Disclosing the recording before it begins is the safest approach for any cross-border conversation.
Can I record police officers with smart glasses in Wisconsin?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter (a traffic stop, a public street interaction), Wisconsin's one-party consent rule under § 968.31(2)(c) also permits audio recording. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.
Does Wisconsin's intimate-representation law apply to smart glasses?
Yes. Wis. Stat. § 942.09 specifically prohibits capturing intimate representations of a person without consent under circumstances in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Using smart glasses to record anyone's intimate areas in a private location, regardless of the recording form factor, is a Class I felony carrying up to 3.5 years imprisonment.
Can I use a recording made with smart glasses in a Wisconsin court case?
Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) permits the recording as a criminal matter if you were a participant and lacked a criminal or tortious purpose. For a telephone-conversation recording specifically, Wis. Stat. § 885.365 makes it totally inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action unless the other party was told, at the time, that the call was being recorded and might be used in court. Admissibility of an in-person recording is a separate question left to the court's discretion. Consult a Wisconsin attorney before relying on any recorded conversation as evidence.
Updates
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part expectation-of-privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, where it appears.
Corrected the Wisconsin one-party consent citation to Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) and noted that the exception also does not cover recordings made to commit any other injurious act.
Replaced a vague, uncited claim that Wisconsin courts 'may require all-party consent' in civil discovery or family-law proceedings with the actual rule: Wis. Stat. § 885.365 makes a recorded telephone conversation inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action unless the recorded party was told, at the time, that the call was being recorded and might be used in court. Fixed in KeyTakeaways, a body section and its heading, a Practical Tips bullet, and one FAQ answer, and cited the statute.
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.
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 968: Commencement Of Criminal Proceedings
§ 968.31Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in ss. 196.63 or 968.28 to 968.30, whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony: (a) Intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication. (b) Intentionally uses, attempts to use or procures any other person to use or attempt to use any electronic, mechanical or other device to intercept any oral communication. (c) Discloses, or attempts 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 in violation of this section or under circumstances constituting violation of this section. (d) Uses, or attempts to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication in violation of this section or under circumstances constituting violation of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Maloney held recordings made with one party's prior consent fall under Section 968.31(2)(b) and (c), and that aiding a police sting is not an "injurious act." State v. Gilmore pointed to 968.31(2m) damages and 968.31(1)(e) penalties, reserving suppression for illegal interceptions.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Maloney (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2005, 281 Wis. 2d 595)✓A homicide suspect's girlfriend let police record her hotel room conversations with him in Las Vegas; the court held the videotapes lawful under 968.31(2)(b) and (c) because she was a consenting party, and that helping a lawful sting is not an injurious act.
- State v. Popenhagen (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008, 309 Wis. 2d 601)“…Arnold, 51 Wis.2d at 442 , 187 N.W.2d 354 (citing Wis. Stat. § 968.31 (2)(b)). However, in considering all th…”
- State v. Gilmore (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1996, 201 Wis. 2d 820)✓Prosecutors filed a public complaint quoting 27 pages of lawfully wiretapped calls; the court held the unsealed filing violated the surveillance law but refused suppression, pointing to the civil action in 968.31(2m) and the criminal penalty in 968.31(1)(e) as the remedies.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Wisconsin Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Wisconsin Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 942: Crimes Against Reputation, Privacy And Civil Liberties
§ 942.09Representations depicting nudity.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(1) In this section: (a) “Captures a representation” means takes a photograph, makes a motion picture, videotape, recording, or other visual or audio representation, or records or stores in any medium data that represents a visual image. (ae) “Consent” means words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to the act. A person who has not attained the age of 18 is incapable of consent. The following persons are presumed incapable of consent but the presumption may be rebutted by competent evidence, subject to the provisions of s. 972.11 (2): 1. A person suffering from a mental illness or defect that impairs capacity to appraise personal conduct. 2. A person who is unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act. (ag) “Intimate representation” means any of the following: 1. A representation of a nude or partially nude person. 2. A representation of clothed, covered, or partially clothed or covered genitalia or buttock that is not otherwise visible to the public. 3. A representation of a person urinating, defecating, or using a feminine hygiene product. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Nelson (2006) gave "reasonable expectation of privacy" in Wis. Stat. 942.09 its ordinary meaning, not the Fourth Amendment test. State v. Jahnke (2008) called that incomplete: the test is whether one reasonably expected not to be recorded nude. State v. Culver (2018) upheld the post-or-publish ban against overbreadth.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Nelson (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2006, 294 Wis. 2d 578)✓Nelson secretly videotaped neighbors through their bathroom window from next door. Affirming his 942.09(2)(a) conviction, the court held "reasonable expectation of privacy" has its ordinary meaning under an objective reasonable-person test, not Fourth Amendment case law.
- State v. Culver (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2018, 384 Wis. 2d 222)✓Culver posted nude photos of a woman online without her consent and pleaded guilty under 942.09(3m)(a)2. The court rejected his overbreadth and vagueness attacks on the post-or-publish statute, found he lacked standing to raise a Commerce Clause claim, and affirmed.
- State v. Chagnon (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2015, 364 Wis. 2d 719)✓Chagnon, a registered sex offender, cut 189 photos of clothed girls out of magazines and pasted them into a notebook. The court held that 942.09(1)(a)'s definition of "captures a representation" does not reach that conduct, and reversed the refusal to dismiss 23 counts.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Surveillance, and Privacy (2026), Wisconsin Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Privacy Crimes and Penalties (2026), Wisconsin Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 942.08Invasion of privacy.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
(1) In this section: (a) “Nude or partially nude person” means any human being who has less than fully and opaquely covered genitals, pubic area or buttocks, any female human being who has less than a fully opaque covering over any portion of a breast below the top of the nipple, or any male human being with covered genitals in a discernibly turgid state. (b) “Private place” means a place where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from being observed without his or her knowledge and consent. (c) “Surveillance device” means any device, instrument, apparatus, implement, mechanism or contrivance used, designed to be used to observe, or capable of observing, the activities of a person. “Surveillance device” includes a peephole. (2) Except as provided in sub. (4), whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor: (a) Knowingly installs a surveillance device in any private place, or uses a surveillance device to observe in a private place, with the intent to observe any nude or partially nude person without the consent of the person observed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Wisconsin courts have applied Wis. Stat. 942.08 to hidden surveillance of nudity. Gillund v. Meridian Mutual Insurance (2009) concluded that secretly videotaping a houseguest violated 942.08(2) and that, unlike the civil privacy statute, it requires specific intent. State v. Jahnke (2008) described 942.08 as addressing live viewing.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gillund v. Meridian Mutual Insurance (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2009, 323 Wis. 2d 1)✓An uncle secretly videotaped his niece undressed in his home; applying Wis. Stat. 942.08(2) (1999-2000), the court held his admitted conduct violated the criminal invasion of privacy statute even though he was never convicted, so the penal-law exclusion barred coverage.
- State v. Culver (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2018, 384 Wis. 2d 222)✓Convicted of posting nude photos of a woman online, Culver attacked the definition of "nude or partially nude person" that the post-or-publish statute borrows from Wis. Stat. 942.08(1)(a); the court declined to analyze it in detail and said it reasonably tracked common usage.
- State v. Jahnke (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2008, 316 Wis. 2d 324)“…nces. As the State points out, at least one other statute, Wis. Stat. § 942.08 , our "Peeping Tom" law, addresses live…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Wisconsin Laws on Recording in Public: Filming, Photography, and Privacy (2026), Wisconsin Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 885: Witnesses And Oral Testimony
§ 885.365Recorded telephone conversation.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Evidence obtained as the result of the use of voice recording equipment for recording of telephone conversations, by way of interception of a communication or in any other manner, shall be totally inadmissible in the courts of this state in civil actions, except as provided in ss. 968.28 to 968.37. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where: (a) Such recording is made in a manner other than by interception and the person whose conversation is being recorded is informed at that time that the conversation is being recorded and that any evidence thereby obtained may be used in a court of law; or such recording is made through a recorder connector provided by the telecommunications utility as defined in s. 196.01 (10) or a telecommunications carrier as defined in s. 196.01 (8m) in accordance with its tariffs and which automatically produces a distinctive recorder tone that is repeated at intervals of approximately 15 seconds; (b) The recording is made by a telecommunications utility as defined in s. 196.01 (10), a telecommunications carrier as defined in s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2002
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bauers v. Board of Regents (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2002, 33 F. App'x 812)“…ngs were inadmissable under Wisconsin law. She argues that Wis. Stat. § 885.365 (1), which prohibits the introduction o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Recordings as Evidence: US Court Rules by State
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: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Alabama Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 939: Crimes
§ 939.50Classification of felonies.In forcecited in 16 of our articles
(1) Felonies in the statutes are classified as follows: (a) Class A felony. (b) Class B felony. (c) Class C felony. (d) Class D felony. (e) Class E felony. (f) Class F felony. (g) Class G felony. (h) Class H felony. (i) Class I felony. (2) A felony is a Class A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, or I felony when it is so specified in the statutes. (3) Penalties for felonies are as follows: (a) For a Class A felony, life imprisonment. (b) For a Class B felony, imprisonment not to exceed 60 years. (c) For a Class C felony, a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 40 years, or both. (d) For a Class D felony, a fine not to exceed $100,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 25 years, or both. (e) For a Class E felony, a fine not to exceed $50,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 15 years, or both. (f) For a Class F felony, a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 years and 6 months, or both. (g) For a Class G felony, a fine not to exceed $25,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 10 years, or both. (h) For a Class H felony, a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 6 years, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 95 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lechner (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1998, 217 Wis. 2d 392)“…ce to the penalty structure the legislature established in Wis. Stat. §§ 939.50 through 939.52. "While the word 'serio…”
- State v. Gerald D. Taylor (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2013, 347 Wis. 2d 30)“…mum term of imprisonment for a Class H felony is six years. Wis. Stat. § 939.50(3)(h)——(i).…”
- State v. Head (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2002, 255 Wis. 2d 194)“…s two-element offense was punishable by life imprisonment. Wis. Stat. § 939.50 (3)(a) (1985-86). ¶ 56. Section 940.0…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), How Many Years for Second Degree Murder? Sentences by State (2026), Wisconsin Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 939.51Classification of misdemeanors.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) Misdemeanors in chs. 939 to 951 are classified as follows: (a) Class A misdemeanor. (b) Class B misdemeanor. (c) Class C misdemeanor. (2) A misdemeanor is a Class A, B or C misdemeanor when it is so specified in chs. 939 to 951. (3) Penalties for misdemeanors are as follows: (a) For a Class A misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both. (b) For a Class B misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both. (c) For a Class C misdemeanor, a fine not to exceed $500 or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Williams (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2000, 236 Wis. 2d 293)“…10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months or both. See Wis. Stat. § 939.51 (3)(a). A technical amendment to § 939.…”
- State v. Hamdan (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2003, 264 Wis. 2d 433)“…d $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both. Wis. Stat. § 939.51 (3)(a). All subsequent references to…”
- State v. Bonds (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2006, 292 Wis. 2d 344)“…misdemeanor that has maximum imprisonment of nine months. Wis. Stat. § 939.51 (3)(a). Therefore, even with the repeat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Child Support Laws (2026): Guidelines & Calculator, Wisconsin Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Assault vs Battery in Wisconsin: Battery Charges and Penalties
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 63 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Security Camera Laws: BIPA, Audio Rules, and Placement (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Wis. Stat. § 968.31 (Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic, and oral communications prohibited). Sets out the general prohibition on unlawfully intercepting communications as a Class H felony; provides the one-party consent exception at § 968.31(2)(b); civil remedy including minimum $100/day or $1,000 damages plus punitive damages and attorney fees at § 968.31(2m).(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov)
- Wis. Stat. § 942.09 (Representations depicting nudity). § 942.09(2)(am)1: Class I felony for capturing intimate representations without consent in private spaces. § 942.09(2)(am)3: Class I felony for distribution/possession of non-consensually captured intimate representations (adult victim). § 942.09(2)(dr): Class H felony when the victim is a minor. Also covers synthetic intimate representations used to coerce or intimidate.(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov)
- Wis. Stat. § 942.08 (Invasion of privacy). § 942.08(2)(a): surveillance of nude/partially nude person in private place (Class A misdemeanor; Class I felony under § 942.08(4) when victim is under 18). § 942.08(2)(b): looking into restrooms/dressing rooms for sexual gratification (Class A misdemeanor). § 942.08(2)(c): similar conduct with no person present (Class A misdemeanor). § 942.08(2)(d): trespassing to observe through dwelling window (Class A misdemeanor; Class I felony under § 942.08(4) when victim is under 18). § 942.08(3): recording under clothing/upskirt (Class I felony for adults).(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov)
- Wis. Stat. § 939.50 (Classification of felonies). Establishes maximum penalties for Wisconsin felony classes. Class H felony: up to 6 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. Class I felony: up to 3.5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov)
- Wis. Stat. § 939.51 (Classification of misdemeanors). Class A misdemeanor: up to 9 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000.(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability of at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) (Definition of oral communication as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception). Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act). Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine, stop recording if asked, and comply with applicable law.(meta.com)
- Wis. Stat. § 885.365: Recorded telephone conversation. Makes a recording of a telephone conversation totally inadmissible in a Wisconsin civil action unless the recorded party was told, at the time, that the call was being recorded and might be used in a court proceeding.(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov