EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsMinnesota LawVideo RecordingPrivacy

Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 2, 202611 min read

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. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties

Minnesota law generally permits silent video recording in public spaces. When video captures audio, the one-party consent rule under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02 applies. Recording video in a location where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy can violate Minn. Stat. Section 609.746, the interference-with-privacy statute.

Overview of Minnesota Video Recording Laws

Minnesota does not have a single comprehensive statute governing all video recording. Instead, video recording is regulated by a combination of statutes addressing wiretapping, privacy, voyeurism, and data protection. Understanding when video recording is legal in Minnesota requires analyzing which statutes apply to your specific situation.

The most important distinction is between video-only recording and video with audio. Minnesota's wiretapping statute, Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, covers "wire, oral, or electronic communications," which means it primarily targets audio. Pure video recording without sound does not fall squarely under Chapter 626A. However, because most modern video recordings capture audio simultaneously, the one-party consent rule typically applies in practice.

Separate privacy statutes, particularly Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 (interference with privacy), create additional restrictions on video recording regardless of whether audio is captured.

Video Recording in Public Spaces

Minnesota clip-on lavalier microphone attached to a jacket lapel in tight close-up, shallow focus

General Right to Film in Public

No Minnesota statute bans filming what is plainly visible in public. You can generally film:

Silent video in public is generally legal in Minnesota; secret recording into private places is a crime under Minn. Stat. 609.746, and captured audio follows the one-party rule.
Video of what is plainly visible in public is generally legal in Minnesota. Private places and other people's private conversations are where the limits start.
  • On public streets, sidewalks, and parks
  • In government buildings open to the public (subject to the building's posted rules)
  • At public meetings, where the public body's own rules allow it (the Open Meeting Law does not address recording by attendees)
  • During public protests and demonstrations
  • From your own property looking at public areas
  • In retail stores, restaurants, and other businesses open to the public (subject to the owner's right to set rules on their property)

The constitutional basis in Minnesota is Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021), where the Eighth Circuit held that taking photographs and recording videos in a public park to inform the public about a controversy is protected by the First Amendment. The court noted that recording unrelated to an expressive purpose may not receive the same protection. The Eighth Circuit has not decided whether recording police is protected. The right to film in public is not absolute, and reasonable, content-neutral time, place, and manner rules can apply.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The key legal concept governing video recording in Minnesota is the reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording is generally legal when the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as when they are in a public place. Recording becomes problematic when the subject is in a location where they reasonably expect privacy.

Locations where people generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy include:

  • Private homes and apartments
  • Bathrooms and restrooms
  • Locker rooms and changing areas
  • Hotel rooms
  • Medical examination rooms
  • Private offices with closed doors

Locations where people generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy include:

  • Public streets and parks
  • Shopping malls and retail stores
  • Restaurants, bars, and coffee shops
  • Open-plan offices and lobbies
  • Parking lots
  • Public transportation

Recording on Private Property

On private property, the property owner or authorized person sets the rules about recording. A business owner can prohibit video recording inside their establishment. If you continue recording after being asked to stop on private property, you could face trespassing charges under Minn. Stat. Section 609.605.

However, a property owner's prohibition on recording does not give them the right to confiscate your recording equipment. An owner can ask you to delete a recording, but no Minnesota law requires you to delete a lawfully made recording because an owner asks.

Minnesota glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

When video recording captures audio, Minnesota's wiretapping statute comes into play. Under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, the one-party consent rule applies to the audio portion of any video recording.

This means:

  • If you are a participant in the conversation being recorded on video, one-party consent is satisfied
  • If you are recording video of other people's conversations without being a participant, the audio capture may violate the wiretapping statute
  • Video-only recording (with the microphone turned off) is not covered by Section 626A.02

In practice, most video recordings do capture audio, so the safest approach is to assume that one-party consent rules apply to any video recording in a private setting.

Interference with Privacy: Minn. Stat. Section 609.746

What the Statute Prohibits

Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 makes it a crime to secretly watch or record, through a window or other opening, a person in another's home (after entering the property), or in a hotel room, tanning booth or similar place where they may be undressed, with intent to intrude on their privacy. Some of those paragraphs reach devices that record sounds as well as images.

A separate paragraph makes it a crime to record someone's intimate parts without consent in a home, hotel room, tanning booth, bathroom, locker room, changing room, shower or similar private place, whether or not the recording is hidden. Secretly recording under or around someone's clothing to capture their intimate parts is a misdemeanor even in public. Open recording of ordinary public activity is not covered.

Penalties for Interference with Privacy

OffenseClassificationMaximum Prison TermMaximum Fine
First offenseGross misdemeanor364 days$3,000
Repeat offense (after a prior conviction)Felony2 years$5,000
Offense against a minor the offender knew or had reason to know was presentFelony2 years$5,000
Minor victim, sexual intent, offender more than 36 months olderFelony4 years$5,000

The escalation from gross misdemeanor to felony for repeat offenses or offenses involving minors reflects the seriousness with which Minnesota treats privacy violations through hidden recording.

Specific Prohibited Locations

Section 609.746 reaches secret recording through a window or other opening with intent to intrude on privacy, or recording of intimate parts without consent, in places such as:

  • Bathrooms and restrooms in any building
  • Locker rooms and changing areas in gyms, pools, and retail stores
  • Tanning booths and fitting rooms
  • Bedrooms in private residences
  • Hotel rooms and guest quarters
  • Any location where a person is in a state of undress and has a reasonable expectation of privacy

The private-place paragraphs do not apply to conduct in a medical facility, or in a commercial establishment whose owner posts conspicuous surveillance signs. That exemption does not cover recording under clothing, audio recording, or a civil privacy lawsuit.

Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images

Minn. Stat. Section 617.261

Minnesota has a specific statute addressing what is commonly called "revenge porn." Minn. Stat. Section 617.261 criminalizes the intentional dissemination of an image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, when the person depicted is identifiable, the disseminator knows or reasonably should know the person did not consent to the dissemination, and the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the disseminator knew or reasonably should have known the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This statute applies to both photographs and video recordings. Violations are classified as follows:

OffenseClassificationMaximum Penalty
Basic offenseGross misdemeanor364 days / $3,000
With an aggravating factor (financial loss to the person depicted, intent to profit, posting on a website or running a site or app for such images, intent to harass, image obtained through a crime such as interference with privacy, or a prior conviction)Felony3 years / $5,000

Civil Remedy: Minn. Stat. Section 604.31

Victims of nonconsensual image dissemination also have a civil cause of action under Minn. Stat. Section 604.31. This statute allows victims to sue the person who disseminated the images for:

  • General and special damages, including financial losses and mental anguish
  • Any profit the defendant made from the dissemination
  • A civil penalty of up to $10,000
  • Injunctive relief to prevent further distribution
  • Attorney fees and court costs

The civil remedy exists alongside the criminal penalties, meaning a victim can pursue both a criminal complaint and a civil lawsuit.

Video Recording in Specific Settings

Workplace Video Surveillance

Minnesota employers can generally install video cameras in common work areas where employees do not have a privacy expectation. Cameras are permitted in:

  • Reception areas and lobbies
  • Warehouses and production floors
  • Parking lots and building exteriors
  • Common break rooms

Employers should keep cameras out of:

  • Bathrooms and restrooms
  • Changing areas and locker rooms
  • Other areas where employees may be undressed

If workplace cameras capture audio, the one-party consent rule applies. Silent video surveillance in common areas is generally permissible, but employers should have written policies informing employees about camera locations and purposes.

School Video Recording

Minnesota schools use security cameras extensively. School districts set their own policies about camera placement and use, subject to state and federal privacy laws. Minnesota's wiretap law lets students and parents record conversations they take part in, but schools can restrict recording through their policies, and every district must have a student cell phone policy.

For detailed information about recording in educational settings, see our page on Minnesota school recording laws.

Home Security Cameras

Minnesota residents can install video cameras on their own property for security purposes. Key rules include:

  • Cameras on your property can record your yard, driveway, and entrances
  • Cameras should not be aimed directly into a neighbor's private spaces (bedrooms, bathrooms)
  • Audio-enabled cameras must comply with the one-party consent rule for any conversations they capture
  • Indoor cameras in common areas are generally fine; keep cameras out of bathrooms and guest bedrooms, because using a camera there with intent to record someone's intimate parts without consent is a crime

Dashcam Video Recording

Dashcams are legal in Minnesota, but Minn. Stat. Section 169.71 limits objects mounted between the driver and the windshield, so mount a dashcam behind, or just above or below, the rearview mirror (the statute's exception for "driver feedback and safety monitoring equipment" mounted there is not defined, so whether it covers a consumer dashcam is not settled). The video captured by dashcams in public spaces does not raise privacy concerns because people on public roads have no reasonable expectation of privacy. For a detailed discussion of dashcam-specific rules, see our page on Minnesota dashcam laws.

AI-Generated Video and Deepfakes

Minnesota has taken steps to address synthetic media. Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 prohibits using deepfake audio or video to influence elections, but the restricted window is tied to a political party nominating convention or the start of an election's absentee voting period rather than a flat 90 days before Election Day: dissemination is prohibited within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of the absentee voting period before a presidential nomination primary or a regular or special state or local primary or general election. Penalties depend on the circumstances: repeat violations within five years of a prior conviction can draw up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (felony-level), violations intended to cause violence or bodily harm cap at 364 days and $3,000 (gross misdemeanor), and other violations cap at 90 days and $1,000 (misdemeanor).

Minnesota's 2023 c 58 deepfake package (enacted May 26, 2023, eff. Aug. 1, 2023) specifically targets video deepfakes: Minn. Stat. Section 617.262 criminalizes the dissemination of nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images (deep fakes) -- consenting to a deep fake's creation is not a defense to a dissemination prosecution, but the statute does not separately criminalize creation alone; Minn. Stat. Section 604.32 creates a civil cause of action for NCII deepfakes. General and special damages, profit disgorgement, and attorney fees are recoverable without a statutory cap, while a separate civil penalty line item is capped at up to $100,000. The election deepfake statute (Section 609.771) survived a preliminary-injunction challenge in Kohls v. Ellison (denial January 2025, affirmed by the Eighth Circuit February 2026 on delay grounds without reaching the merits). As AI video generation technology advances, these statutes are the primary framework for addressing deepfake misuse in Minnesota.

The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), effective July 31, 2025, requires covered businesses to get consent before processing biometric data, such as facial geometry, to identify a specific person. Ordinary video footage is not biometric data under the Act, and it applies only to larger data handlers (generally those processing data on 100,000 or more Minnesota consumers a year).

Using Video Recordings as Evidence in Minnesota

Authentication Requirements

Video recordings are admissible as evidence in Minnesota courts when properly authenticated under Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rule 901. Authentication typically requires:

  • Testimony from the person who made the recording or operated the camera
  • Evidence that the recording accurately depicts the events it purports to show
  • Chain of custody documentation showing the recording was preserved without alteration
  • Digital metadata supporting the recording's date, time, and authenticity

Under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.11, audio of a conversation intercepted in violation of the wiretap law cannot be used as evidence in any civil or criminal case, except, for private recordings, against the person who made the illegal recording. Minnesota's interference-with-privacy statute (Section 609.746) has no similar rule, so whether an unlawfully made video is admitted is up to the court. The person who made it can still be prosecuted.

Legally obtained video recordings, including those made in public spaces or with proper consent, are routinely admitted as evidence in criminal and civil proceedings throughout Minnesota.

Common Evidentiary Uses

Video recordings are frequently used in Minnesota courts for:

  • Personal injury cases showing the circumstances of an accident
  • Criminal cases capturing crimes in progress
  • Employment disputes documenting workplace incidents
  • Family law matters showing parenting behavior or living conditions
  • Property disputes documenting conditions or boundary issues
  • Insurance claims supporting or refuting damage claims

Criminal Penalties Summary

Minnesota imposes penalties for illegal video recording under multiple statutes:

StatuteOffenseClassificationMaximum Penalty
Section 609.746Surreptitious surveillance (first offense)Gross misdemeanor364 days / $3,000
Section 609.746Surreptitious surveillance (repeat/minor)Felony2 years / $5,000
Section 609.746Minor victim, sexual intent, offender more than 36 months olderFelony4 years / $5,000
Section 617.261Nonconsensual image dissemination (basic)Gross misdemeanor364 days / $3,000
Section 617.261Nonconsensual image dissemination (aggravated)Felony3 years / $5,000
Section 626A.02Illegal interception (audio in video)Felony5 years / $20,000

More Minnesota Recording Laws

Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording

Back to Minnesota Recording Laws

More Minnesota Recording Topics

More Minnesota Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record video in public in Minnesota?

Yes. Minnesota has no general prohibition on video recording in public spaces. You can generally film on public streets, sidewalks, and parks, and in government buildings open to the public subject to posted rules. The Eighth Circuit has held that recording in a public park to inform the public is protected by the First Amendment. If your video captures audio, the one-party consent rule applies to the audio portion.

Is it illegal to record someone without their consent in Minnesota?

It depends on the circumstances. Video recording someone in public is generally legal without consent. However, secretly recording through a window or other opening into a place where someone may be undressed, such as a bathroom, locker room, or bedroom, with intent to intrude on their privacy, or recording someone's intimate parts there without consent whether or not the camera is hidden, violates Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 and is a gross misdemeanor or felony.

What is the penalty for sharing intimate images without consent in Minnesota?

Under Minn. Stat. Section 617.261, nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days in jail and a $3,000 fine). It is a felony (up to 3 years and $5,000) if the person depicted suffers financial loss, the sharer acts for profit or to harass, posts the image on a website or runs a site or app for such images, obtained the image through a crime such as interference with privacy, or has a prior conviction. Victims can also sue under Section 604.31.

Can I install security cameras on my property in Minnesota?

Yes. You can install video cameras on your own property for security purposes. Cameras can cover your yard, driveway, and entrances. They should not be aimed into a neighbor's private spaces like bedrooms or bathrooms. Audio-enabled cameras must comply with one-party consent rules under Section 626A.02.

Does Minnesota law address deepfake videos?

Yes. Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 prohibits using deepfake audio or video to influence elections, with the restricted window tied to a party nominating convention or the start of an election's absentee voting period rather than a flat 90 days before Election Day. Penalties range from a 90-day misdemeanor to a 5-year felony for repeat violations, depending on the circumstances. The state also criminalizes disseminating nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images (Section 617.262), and Section 604.32 lets the person depicted sue.

Updates

Added that the home peeping offense requires entering another's property.

Clarified that Minnesota's secret-recording offense covers recording into a private room through a window or other opening with intent to intrude, and that a camera inside such a room is a crime when used with intent to record intimate parts without consent.

Corrected the home-camera rule to the intent-based standard in Minnesota's privacy statute, noted that the windshield exception for mirror-mounted equipment may not cover dashcams, removed an implied break-room notice requirement, and scoped the wiretap evidence rule to private recordings.

We corrected the page to say Minnesota's privacy statute also covers openly recording someone's intimate parts in a bathroom or locker room, fixed the felony factors and 364-day maximum for sharing intimate images, added the 4-year felony tier for minor victims, clarified that only illegally intercepted audio is barred from evidence by statute, and noted the windshield-mount limit for dashcams.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Hedged the claim that the First Amendment protects recording police officers to reflect that the Eighth Circuit, which covers Minnesota, has not clearly established that specific right, and corrected the Section 609.746 gross misdemeanor maximum from 1 year to the statutory 364 days in both penalty tables.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the deepfake law section: Minn. Stat. 609.771's election-deepfake window is tied to a nominating convention or the start of absentee voting (not a flat 90 days before Election Day) and only its repeat-offense tier is a felony; 617.262 criminalizes disseminating, not creating, nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images; and 604.32's $100,000 figure caps only the civil penalty line item, not the whole recovery.

Corrected the public changelog entry so it no longer implies Section 604.32's entire civil deepfake remedy is capped at $100,000; only a specific civil-penalty line item carries that cap, while compensatory damages and fees remain uncapped.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Added 2023 c 58 [deepfake](/us-laws/deepfake-laws) package: § 617.262 criminal NCII deepfake and § 604.32 civil NCII deepfake ($100K civil penalty cap; uncapped compensatory damages/fees also available), both eff. Aug. 1 2023; noted Kohls v. Ellison PI denial (January 2025, affirmed by the Eighth Circuit February 2026 on delay grounds) re § 609.771 election deepfake; added deepfake sources to SourcesList.

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02 - Interception and Disclosure(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  2. Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 - Interference with Privacy(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  3. Minn. Stat. Section 617.261 - Nonconsensual Dissemination(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  4. Minn. Stat. Section 604.31 - Civil Action for Nonconsensual Dissemination(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  5. Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 - Deepfakes(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  6. Minnesota Rules of Evidence Rule 901(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  7. 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
  8. Minn. Stat. Section 617.262 - Criminal NCII Deepfake(revisor.mn.gov).gov
  9. Minn. Stat. Section 604.32 - Civil Action for NCII Deepfake(revisor.mn.gov).gov
Share: