Idaho
Idaho Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Surveillance Rules (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Idaho security cameras are legal for home and business use, but placement is governed by Idaho Code 18-6605 and 18-6702. Cameras are permitted on your own property and in public-facing areas, should be kept out of bathrooms and changing areas (a hidden camera there is a felony under Idaho Code 18-6605 when used for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone), and audio recording requires one-party consent.
Idaho does not have a single comprehensive security camera law. Instead, the legality of security cameras depends on where they are placed, what they capture, whether they record audio, and the reasonable privacy expectations of the people being recorded. Security cameras are broadly legal in Idaho for home protection, business security, and property monitoring, but specific rules apply to prevent privacy violations.
This page covers the legal framework for security cameras in Idaho, including residential and commercial placement rules, audio recording restrictions, neighbor disputes, employer surveillance, and the penalties for illegal camera placement.
General Legal Framework
No Specific Security Camera Statute
Idaho has not enacted a dedicated security camera or video surveillance statute. Instead, security camera use is governed by the intersection of several legal principles:
Idaho Code 18-6605 (Video Voyeurism). This statute makes it a felony to use or install a camera or other imaging device where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, without their knowledge or consent, when it is done for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone. It is the main criminal statute behind the rule that cameras stay out of bathrooms and changing areas, but it does not cover a camera placed in a private area for other reasons.
Idaho Code 18-6702 (Wiretapping). This statute governs audio recording. Security cameras that capture audio must comply with Idaho's one-party consent rule. Cameras that record only video are not covered by the wiretapping statute.
Common law privacy rights. Idaho courts recognize a common law right to privacy, which can form the basis of civil claims when security cameras intrude on someone's reasonable privacy expectations.
Property rights. Property owners have broad rights to install security cameras on their own property and to set recording rules for their premises.
The Privacy Expectation Standard
The key legal concept for security cameras in Idaho is "reasonable expectation of privacy." Cameras are generally legal in areas where people do not expect privacy. In areas where they do, a camera can lead to a felony charge under Idaho Code 18-6605 if it was installed for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, and to a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy even if it was not. Idaho recognizes intrusion upon seclusion as one of four invasion-of-privacy claims (Baker v. Burlington Northern, 99 Idaho 688 (1978)). The standard is evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.
Low privacy expectation (cameras generally legal):
- Public streets and sidewalks
- Retail sales floors and customer areas
- Office lobbies and reception areas
- Parking lots and driveways
- Building entrances and exits
- Front yards and exterior property
High privacy expectation (keep cameras out):
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Bedrooms (without occupant consent)
- Medical examination rooms
- Nursing and lactation rooms
- Hotel rooms (by hotel management)
Residential Security Camera Rules
Cameras on Your Own Property
Idaho homeowners and renters can install security cameras on their own property for protection and monitoring purposes. Common legal placements include:
- Exterior cameras covering your front door, driveway, garage, backyard, and property perimeter
- Doorbell cameras (such as Ring, Nest, and Arlo doorbells) that record visitors
- Indoor cameras in common areas like living rooms, hallways, and kitchens
- Baby monitors in nurseries and children's rooms (with the knowledge of other caregivers)
- Pet cameras for monitoring animals while away
Restrictions on Residential Cameras
Even on your own property, certain camera placements carry criminal or civil risk:
Bathrooms and private spaces. Do not place cameras in bathrooms, even in your own home, if other people (guests, roommates, family members) use those spaces. A hidden camera there is a felony under Idaho Code 18-6605 when installed for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, and in any case can support a civil invasion-of-privacy claim.
Guest bedrooms. Placing hidden cameras in bedrooms used by guests, whether in a private home or a vacation rental property, can be charged as video voyeurism if done for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, and can lead to a civil invasion-of-privacy lawsuit.
Rental units. If you rent out part of your property, the tenant's rented space is their private domain. Landlords should not install cameras inside tenant-occupied units; doing so can support an invasion-of-privacy claim. See Idaho landlord-tenant recording laws for more detail.
Vacation rentals and Airbnb properties. Idaho has no statute that specifically requires short-term rental hosts to disclose cameras; the state's short-term rental law (Idaho Code 67-6539) does not address cameras. Major rental platforms, however, require hosts to disclose cameras and ban cameras inside the space guests use. A hidden camera in a bedroom or bathroom used by guests can also lead to criminal charges under Idaho's voyeurism law, if done for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, and to a civil invasion-of-privacy lawsuit.
Neighbor-Facing Cameras
One of the most common security camera disputes involves cameras that are aimed toward a neighbor's property. Idaho law does not explicitly prohibit pointing cameras toward neighboring properties, but the following principles apply:
Your own property boundary. Cameras that primarily cover your own property but incidentally capture portions of a neighbor's yard or driveway are generally legal. Your right to monitor your own property includes capturing what is visible from your property line.
Direct surveillance of neighbors. Deliberately aiming a camera to peer into a neighbor's windows, backyard, or other private areas could constitute an invasion of privacy under Idaho common law. If the camera placement serves no legitimate security purpose and primarily monitors the neighbor's private activities, it may give rise to civil liability.
HOA rules. Many Idaho homeowners' associations have rules about camera placement, appearance, and visibility. These rules can restrict where cameras are mounted and how they look, even if the placement is legal under state law.
Best practices for neighbor-facing cameras:
- Position cameras to maximize coverage of your own property
- Avoid pointing cameras directly at windows or private outdoor areas of neighboring properties
- Use cameras with adjustable fields of view to minimize neighbor coverage
- Communicate openly with neighbors about your camera placement and purpose
Business Security Camera Rules
Legal Placement in Commercial Settings
Idaho businesses can install security cameras throughout their commercial premises, with the same privacy-based restrictions that apply to residential cameras. Legal camera placements include:
- Retail floors and showrooms. Cameras monitoring customer and employee activity in open sales areas
- Entrances and exits. Cameras covering building access points for security and access control
- Parking lots and loading docks. Exterior cameras monitoring vehicle and foot traffic
- Cash registers and point-of-sale areas. Cameras monitoring financial transactions
- Warehouses and storage areas. Cameras protecting inventory and monitoring workflow
- Lobbies and waiting areas. Cameras in public-facing reception areas
Placements Businesses Should Avoid
Businesses should keep cameras out of:
- Employee restrooms and bathrooms
- Changing rooms and fitting rooms
- Locker rooms and shower areas
- Break rooms where employees have been given a specific privacy expectation
- Private offices where employees have been told the space is not monitored
A hidden camera in a restroom, changing room, locker room, or shower area installed for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone is felony video voyeurism under Idaho Code 18-6605. A camera in a break room or private office installed for theft or security reasons is not that crime, but it can still expose the business to a civil invasion-of-privacy claim, and recording audio there can violate the wiretapping law.
Employee Notice
Idaho does not have a specific statute requiring employers to notify employees about security camera surveillance. However, best practices include:
- Posting visible signs indicating that the premises are under video surveillance
- Including camera surveillance information in employee handbooks
- Informing employees about the specific areas under camera coverage
- Disclosing whether cameras record audio in addition to video
Providing notice reduces the risk of civil claims and establishes that employees have diminished privacy expectations in monitored areas.
Audio Recording by Security Cameras
The Critical Distinction
Many modern security cameras can record audio as well as video. This is where Idaho's wiretapping law (Idaho Code 18-6702) becomes relevant.
Video-only cameras are not covered by the wiretapping statute. You can capture silent video of areas where cameras are otherwise legal without worrying about consent requirements.
Cameras with audio recording must comply with Idaho's one-party consent rule. This means that if your security camera records conversations between other people and you are not a party to those conversations, the audio capture could violate the wiretapping statute.
Practical Implications
Home security cameras. If you place a camera in your living room and it captures conversations between family members when you are not present, the audio recording may not comply with one-party consent (because no consenting party is present for those specific conversations). Idaho law does not say that a sign or notice counts as consent, and unlawful interception is a felony under Idaho Code 18-6702 (up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine) that can also support a civil suit under Idaho Code 18-6709. The safest course is to turn off audio recording on indoor cameras.
Business security cameras. Cameras in customer areas that capture employee-customer conversations raise similar concerns. If no consenting party is involved in the captured conversations, the audio recording may violate the statute.
Recommended approach: Unless you have a specific need for audio surveillance, consider disabling audio recording on security cameras or limiting audio capture to areas where a consenting party (such as a receptionist or security guard) is always present.
Security Camera Signage
Is Signage Required?
Idaho does not have a specific statute requiring security camera signage. However, posting visible signs that video surveillance is in use is strongly recommended for several reasons:
- Deterrence. Signs discourage criminal activity and trespassing
- Legal protection. Notice establishes that people in the monitored area have diminished privacy expectations
- Audio transparency. If cameras record audio, a sign tells people about it, but Idaho law does not say that a sign counts as consent to record their conversations, so a sign does not replace the one-party consent rule
- Civil liability reduction. Notice reduces the risk of invasion of privacy claims
Effective Signage
Effective security camera signage should:
- Be clearly visible at all entry points to the monitored area
- State that the premises are under video surveillance
- If audio is recorded, explicitly state "Audio and video recording in progress"
- Be written in plain language
Idaho Drone Surveillance
Idaho Code 21-213 specifically addresses drone-based surveillance. The statute bars using an unmanned aircraft system to intentionally surveil or record a specifically targeted person or their home, or a farm, ranch, or business property, without written consent. It also bars recording a person by drone in order to publish or publicly share the footage without that person's written consent, even when the person is not on private property.
This means you cannot use a drone as a flying security camera to monitor neighbors, photograph people on their property, or conduct aerial surveillance of private areas. Limited exceptions cover government uses such as accident documentation, crowd and traffic management, disaster assessment, search and rescue, emergencies, or a warrant; drones used for mapping or resource management; and facility owners inspecting their own lines or equipment on easements. Commercial and agricultural property is protected by the statute, not exempted from it.
Violating the drone surveillance statute does not create a criminal misdemeanor. Instead, Idaho Code 21-213(3) gives the person who was the subject of the prohibited conduct a civil cause of action, entitling them to recover the greater of $1,000 or actual and general damages, plus reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs.
Security Camera Footage as Evidence
Admissibility in Court
Security camera footage is regularly used as evidence in Idaho courts for criminal cases, civil disputes, insurance claims, and other legal proceedings. To be admissible, the footage must be:
- Authentic. Someone must testify that the footage is a genuine, unaltered recording from the camera system
- Relevant. The footage must relate to the issues in the case
- Properly preserved. The footage should be saved in its original format with timestamps and metadata intact
Responding to Requests for Footage
You may receive requests for security camera footage from:
- Law enforcement. Police may request footage as part of an investigation. You can voluntarily provide footage, but you are generally not required to do so without a subpoena or court order.
- Attorneys. Lawyers involved in litigation may request footage through formal discovery processes.
- Insurance companies. Insurers may request footage related to claims investigations.
- Neighbors or other individuals. You are not legally obligated to share security camera footage with private individuals, though you may choose to do so voluntarily.
Retention Periods
Idaho does not mandate a specific retention period for security camera footage. You can keep footage for as long as your storage system allows. However, if you become aware that footage may be relevant to a legal proceeding, you may have a duty to preserve it. Destroying relevant footage after receiving notice of litigation can result in sanctions.
Smart Home Security Systems
Modern smart home security systems (Ring, Nest, Arlo, SimpliSafe, Wyze) raise specific legal considerations in Idaho:
Cloud Storage and Privacy
Many systems upload footage to cloud servers. While the recording itself is governed by Idaho law, the storage and handling of that data may implicate federal data privacy laws and the security system provider's terms of service.
Sharing Features
Some security camera systems allow users to share footage with neighbors or on community platforms (such as Ring's Neighbors app). When sharing footage publicly, be mindful that the content may depict identifiable individuals. While sharing legally obtained footage is generally permitted, using it to harass or defame someone could give rise to civil claims.
Law Enforcement Access
Some security camera companies have established programs for sharing footage with law enforcement. Understanding your camera company's policies on law enforcement data sharing is important for privacy-conscious homeowners.
Idaho Recording Law Sub-Topics
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
More Idaho Recording Topics
See Also
-
Idaho Surveillance Camera Laws covers home, HOA, neighbor, workplace, and landlord camera rules in Idaho.
More Idaho Recording and Surveillance Laws
More Idaho Laws
- Idaho AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Idaho Dashcam Laws
- Idaho Data Privacy Laws
- Idaho Deepfake Laws
- Idaho Employee Monitoring Laws
- Idaho GPS Tracking Laws
- Idaho Police Bodycam Laws
- Idaho Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are security cameras legal in Idaho?
Yes. Security cameras are legal in Idaho for home and business use. You can install cameras on your own property and in public-facing areas of businesses. Keep cameras out of bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, and other places where people expect privacy. A hidden camera there is a felony under Idaho Code 18-6605 if installed for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, and can lead to a civil invasion-of-privacy lawsuit.
Can my security camera record audio in Idaho?
Security cameras that record audio must comply with Idaho's one-party consent wiretapping law (Idaho Code 18-6702). If the camera captures conversations where no consenting party is present, the audio recording can violate the statute, which is a felony. Idaho law does not say that a sign or notice counts as consent, so the safest course is to turn off audio recording or record audio only where a participant in the conversation has agreed.
Can I point a security camera at my neighbor's property in Idaho?
Cameras that primarily cover your own property but incidentally capture portions of a neighbor's yard are generally legal. Deliberately aiming a camera to peer into a neighbor's windows or monitor their private activities could constitute an invasion of privacy under Idaho common law.
Do I need to post signs if I have security cameras in Idaho?
Idaho does not have a specific statute requiring security camera signage. However, posting visible signs is strongly recommended for deterrence and legal protection. A sign does not count as consent to record conversations under Idaho's wiretapping law. Signs reduce the risk of civil claims and establish that people in the area have diminished privacy expectations.
Can a landlord install security cameras in a rental property in Idaho?
Landlords can install cameras in common areas of multi-unit properties (lobbies, hallways, parking lots, building exteriors) but should not install cameras inside tenant-occupied units. A tenant's rented space is their home; a camera there can support an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit and, if installed for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, a felony charge under Idaho Code 18-6605.
Updates
Added the degrading-or-abusing purpose that Idaho Code 18-6605(2) also covers wherever the page described the hidden-camera felony.
Reworded camera-placement rules to match Idaho's video voyeurism statute, which makes a hidden camera in a private place a felony when used for a sexual purpose.
We clarified that Idaho's video voyeurism law requires a sexual purpose (other cameras in private areas can still lead to a civil privacy claim), removed advice that posting a sign makes audio recording lawful, corrected the drone statute's written-consent, publishing and exception rules, and replaced an unsupported short-term-rental camera disclosure law with a note that the rules come from rental platforms.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of penalties under Idaho's drone surveillance statute: violating it creates only a civil cause of action with a $1,000 statutory-damages floor, not a criminal misdemeanor or jail time.
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.
Idaho Code
§ 18-6605video voyeurismIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
18-6605. video voyeurism. (1) As used in this section: (a) "Broadcast" means the electronic transmittal of a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons. (b) "Disseminate" means to make available by any means to any person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Gomez-Alas (Idaho Supreme Court 2020, 167 Idaho 857)“…does not constitute an infamous crime against nature under Idaho Code sections 18-6605 and 18-6606; (2) there was…”
- State v. Martinez (Idaho Supreme Court 1986, 111 Idaho 281)“…4 ; Robbery, Idaho Code § 18-6503 ; Crime against nature, Idaho Code § 18-6605 ; Forcible sexual penetration by use of…”
- State v. Cook (Idaho Court of Appeals 2008, 146 Idaho 261)“…is unconstitutional. Id. at 712, 69 P.3d at 132. Idaho Code Section 18-6605, provides: Every pers…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent, Idaho Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Idaho Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy Rights, and Disputes (2026)
§ 18-6702Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
18-6702. Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited. (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person shall be guilty of a felony and is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed five (5) years or by a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Idaho courts have applied section 18-6702 to intercepted phone calls. Hoskins v. Howard (1998) held cordless telephone conversations are protected wire communications, so scanning, recording and disclosing one supported a claim. Chapman v. NYK Line North America (2009) noted 18-6702(2)(d) makes one-party-consent recording lawful.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hoskins v. Howard (Idaho Supreme Court 1998, 132 Idaho 311)✓A sheriff's deputy used a scanner to record a neighbor's cordless call and passed the tape on; the court held such calls are protected wire communications when part of the call crosses the phone network, so Section 18-6702 reached him, and vacated summary judgment in his favor.
- Chapman v. NYK LINE NORTH AMERICA, INC. (Idaho Supreme Court 2009, 147 Idaho 178)“…rsation with the consent of one party to the conversation. Idaho Code § 18-6702 (2)(d). Of course, an employer could im…”
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…16-11-66.1 (1996); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 (1993); Idaho Code § 18-6702 (1997); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 720, § 5…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Idaho Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Idaho Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Windshield Mounting, and Legal Limits (2026), Idaho Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and One-Party Consent (2026)
§ 18-6709Recovery of civil damages authorized. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person:In forcecited in 14 of our articles
18-6709. Recovery of civil damages authorized. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures any other person to intercept,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Also relied on in: Idaho Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Idaho School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), Idaho Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Privacy Violations, and Penalties (2026)
§ 21-213restrictions on use of unmanned aircraft systems — definition — violation — cause of action and damagesIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
21-213. restrictions on use of unmanned aircraft systems — definition — violation — cause of action and damages. (1) (a) For the purposes of this section, the term "unmanned aircraft system" (UAS) means an unmanned aircraft vehicle, drone, remotely piloted vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Also relied on in: Idaho Laws on Recording in Public: Photography, Filming, and Audio Rights (2026), Idaho Video Recording Laws: Rules for Filming, Surveillance, and Privacy (2026), Idaho Drone Laws (2026): Privacy, Police Warrants, and Hunting Rules
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Sources and References
- Idaho Code 18-6605 - Video Voyeurism(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 18-6702 - Interception and Disclosure of Communications(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 21-213 - Unmanned Aircraft Systems(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Idaho Code 18-6709 - Civil Remedies for Illegal Interception(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Statute(law.cornell.edu)