Missouri
Missouri Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Neighbor Rules
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
Missouri allows security cameras on your own property for both home and business use. Video-only recording faces no major restrictions. Cameras that capture audio raise wiretap questions: Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 reaches in-person conversations only when the device transmits by radio or interferes with a transmission, its private one-party consent exception is written for wire communications, and federal law separately allows recording with one party's consent. Placing cameras in bathrooms or other private areas violates Missouri voyeurism law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252 if the camera captures a person in a state of nudity or records under or through their clothing.
Missouri does not have a single comprehensive security camera statute. Instead, the legality of security cameras is governed by a combination of property rights, wiretapping law, voyeurism statutes, and common law privacy protections. The general rule is permissive: you can install security cameras on your own property and in your business to protect your home, family, and assets. Restrictions apply when cameras capture audio, when they are aimed at private areas, or when they are placed in locations where people expect privacy.
This guide covers the rules for residential security cameras, business surveillance systems, neighbor disputes, HOA restrictions, and the audio recording considerations that apply to security cameras in Missouri.
Residential Security Camera Laws
Your Right to Install Home Security Cameras
Missouri homeowners have a broad right to install security cameras on their own property. You can place cameras:
- On the exterior of your home (front door, back door, garage, driveway)
- In common areas inside your home (living room, kitchen, hallways)
- In your yard, including areas near the property line
- On outbuildings (sheds, detached garages, barns)
- At entry points to your property (gates, driveways)
No state permit or license is required to install residential security cameras in Missouri. You do not need to register your system with any government agency.
Where You Cannot Place Cameras
Even on your own property, certain locations are off-limits for security cameras:
- Guest bathrooms and bedrooms: If you have guests, renters, or other occupants, recording them in a state of nudity, or recording under or through their clothing, in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy violates Missouri's invasion of privacy statute under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252
- Nanny cam exceptions: Hidden cameras used to monitor childcare providers in common areas of your home are generally legal for video-only recording. Adding audio raises the wiretap questions covered below, so keep at least one party's consent to any recorded conversation.
- Tenant spaces: A landlord's camera inside an occupied rental unit carries serious criminal and civil risk (covered in the rental properties section below)
Audio Recording on Security Cameras
Many modern security cameras include audio recording capabilities (two-way talk, ambient audio capture). In Missouri, audio recording can bring in the wiretapping statute under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402. For in-person (oral) conversations, section 542.402.1(2) applies only when the device "transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication," and the private one-party consent exception in section 542.402.2(3) is written for wire communications. The statute does not say how this applies to a Wi-Fi camera that streams audio, so treat the question as unsettled.
The safest working rule, and the one the federal Wiretap Act builds on, is that at least one party to any captured private conversation should consent. This creates practical challenges for security cameras that run continuously:
- Doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest Hello, etc.) that capture audio of conversations with visitors: when you talk with a visitor through the doorbell, you are a party to that conversation and your consent covers it; conversations between visitors that you are not part of are not covered
- Outdoor cameras that pick up conversations of passersby: If you are not part of the conversation and no party has consented, the audio capture could violate federal wiretap law and possibly Missouri's statute
- Indoor cameras that capture household conversations: your consent covers only conversations you take part in. Conversations between other people, including family members, guests or a caregiver, are not covered by your consent just because you live in the home, and recording them with audio can violate the federal Wiretap Act. If an indoor camera runs while you are away or not in the conversation, turn its audio off
Best practice: If your security camera has audio capability and captures conversations you are not part of, the reliable choice is to disable audio recording. A visible sign telling visitors that audio is recorded gives notice, but no Missouri court has held that a posted sign is consent to record a conversation.
Business Security Camera Laws
Employer Surveillance Rights
Missouri businesses can install security cameras to protect against theft, vandalism, and liability. Legal camera locations for businesses include:
| Location | Legal? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Sales floor and retail areas | Yes | No privacy expectation in customer-facing areas |
| Entrances, exits, and lobbies | Yes | Standard security monitoring |
| Parking lots and loading docks | Yes | Exterior surveillance is broadly permitted |
| Hallways and corridors | Yes | Common areas with no privacy expectation |
| Warehouse and production areas | Yes | Monitoring for safety and theft prevention |
| Cash registers and POS stations | Yes | Protecting against employee theft |
| Conference rooms | Generally yes | Consider audio consent if recording conversations |
| Break rooms | Maybe | Depends on whether the space is designated as private |
| Bathrooms | No | Violates voyeurism statutes if camera captures nudity |
| Locker rooms | No | Violates voyeurism statutes if camera captures nudity |
| Changing areas | No | Violates voyeurism statutes if camera captures nudity |
Employee Notification
Missouri does not have a specific statute requiring businesses to notify employees about security cameras in common work areas. However, best practices include:
- Including camera disclosure in the employee handbook
- Posting signs in areas under surveillance
- Informing new hires about camera placement during orientation
Notification becomes more important if cameras record audio, because recording private conversations without any party's consent risks liability under federal wiretap law. Clear notice that employees acknowledge in writing can support an argument that they consented, but notice alone is not the same as consent.
Customer-Facing Businesses
Retail stores, restaurants, banks, and other customer-facing businesses can record video of customers in public-facing areas. Customers entering a business that posts "video surveillance in use" signs have constructive notice that they are being recorded. While Missouri law does not strictly require signage, posted notices reduce the risk of privacy complaints.
Neighbor Privacy and Security Cameras
What You Can Record
Your security cameras can capture areas visible from your property, including portions of neighboring properties that are visible from your vantage point. Missouri law does not prohibit cameras that incidentally capture:
- Neighbors walking in their front yards
- Vehicles in neighboring driveways
- Shared property boundaries and fences
- Public sidewalks and streets adjacent to your property
What You Cannot Record
Deliberately aiming a camera at a neighbor's private areas creates legal risk. Missouri recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which requires:
- An intentional intrusion into another person's private affairs
- The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
Pointing a camera directly at a neighbor's bedroom window, bathroom window, or enclosed backyard (where they have taken steps to create privacy, such as building a tall fence) could support an intrusion upon seclusion claim. The more deliberately you target a private area, the stronger the neighbor's legal position.
Handling Neighbor Camera Disputes
If a neighbor's camera concerns you:
- Talk to your neighbor first. Many camera disputes result from placement that the camera owner did not realize was invasive.
- Review your HOA rules if applicable. Many HOAs have specific rules about camera placement.
- Plant natural barriers like trees or shrubs to block the camera's view of your private areas.
- Install privacy fencing to establish a physical boundary.
- Consult an attorney if the camera is deliberately aimed at your private spaces despite your objections.
If your neighbor's camera has audio and captures your private conversations, federal wiretap law, and possibly Missouri's statute, may provide an additional legal remedy.
HOA and Community Restrictions
HOA Camera Policies
Missouri homeowners associations can adopt rules governing security camera installation. Common HOA restrictions include:
- Aesthetic requirements: Cameras must be a certain color or mounted in specific locations
- Placement limitations: Cameras cannot be aimed at common areas in certain directions
- Height restrictions: Cameras on poles or elevated mounts may be limited
- Approval requirements: Some HOAs require architectural review before camera installation
Missouri HOA Authority
Missouri condominium associations get their rule-making power from the Uniform Condominium Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 448) and their declarations; other homeowners associations get it from their recorded declarations and bylaws. Fines for violations are typically outlined in those documents.
HOA rules cannot conflict with state law, but the Missouri statute that limits HOA restrictions, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 442.404, covers political signs, solar panels, sale signs and chickens and says nothing about security cameras. Check your declaration before installing.
Security Cameras and Rental Properties
Landlord Camera Rules
Missouri landlords can install security cameras in common areas of multi-unit properties:
- Building entrances and lobbies
- Hallways and stairwells
- Parking lots and garages
- Laundry rooms
- Exterior areas
No Missouri statute specifically addresses landlord cameras inside a rented unit, but a camera inside an occupied unit, or one aimed into tenant windows or private patios and balconies, carries serious risk for a landlord:
- If it records a tenant undressed, it is a crime under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252
- If it records conversations, it can violate the federal Wiretap Act
- Even a video-only camera can support a civil claim for intrusion upon seclusion, which the Missouri Supreme Court recognized in Sofka v. Thal (1983)
A tenant who finds one should preserve it as evidence and contact police or a lawyer.
Tenant Camera Rights
Tenants in Missouri can install security cameras (doorbell cameras, window-mounted cameras) on or inside their rental units, subject to lease terms. Key considerations:
- Review your lease for restrictions on exterior modifications or camera installation
- Do not drill into or permanently modify the property without landlord approval
- Wireless, battery-powered cameras (Ring, Blink) typically do not require property modifications
- Your camera should not capture interior areas of neighboring units
Smart Doorbell Cameras
Ring, Nest, and Similar Devices
Smart doorbell cameras are popular security devices that raise specific legal questions in Missouri:
Video recording: Capturing video of your front porch, walkway, and the area immediately in front of your door is legal. This is your property, and visitors to your door have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Audio recording: Most smart doorbells include two-way audio. When you speak with a visitor through the doorbell, you are a party to the conversation and provide one-party consent. When the camera records audio of conversations between two visitors on your porch without your participation, the consent analysis becomes more complex.
Sharing footage: Missouri law does not restrict sharing your own security footage with neighbors, law enforcement, or community groups (such as Neighbors by Ring). However, sharing footage in a way intended to harass or defame someone could create legal liability.
Law enforcement requests: Police can ask you to share doorbell camera footage voluntarily. You are not required to share it without a warrant or court order. Some doorbell camera companies have policies about responding to law enforcement requests, but your decision to share footage remains voluntary.
Signage and Notification Requirements
Missouri Law on Camera Signage
Missouri does not have a state statute requiring "premises under surveillance" signs for residential or commercial security cameras in public-facing areas. However, signage serves important purposes:
- Deterrence: Visible signs discourage criminal activity
- Notice: Signs inform visitors that they are being recorded
- Legal protection: Posted notices strengthen your legal position if someone claims they did not know about the cameras
- Audio notice: Signs stating that audio is recorded give notice to visitors, and someone who reads one and keeps talking may be argued to have consented, but no Missouri court has held that a posted sign is consent to record audio
Recommended Sign Placement
If you choose to post signs (and you should):
- Place signs at all entrances to your property or business
- Make signs visible and readable from a reasonable distance
- Include language about both video and audio recording if applicable
- Use durable, weather-resistant signs for outdoor placement
Security Camera Footage as Evidence
Using Footage in Criminal Cases
Security camera footage is valuable evidence in criminal prosecutions for burglary, theft, vandalism, assault, and trespassing. To maximize the evidentiary value of your footage:
- Maintain accurate timestamps: Ensure your camera's clock is set correctly
- Preserve original files: Do not edit or modify footage you plan to submit as evidence
- Back up footage: Many cameras overwrite old footage after a set period. Download and save relevant clips promptly.
- Provide footage to police: You can voluntarily share footage with investigating officers
Missouri Sunshine Law and Government Security Cameras
Government-owned security cameras (at courthouses, police stations, public buildings) may produce footage that is subject to public records requests under Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610. Footage from cameras in public spaces operated by government entities may be accessible through Sunshine Law requests, subject to exemptions for ongoing investigations and law enforcement records under Section 610.100.
Federal Laws Affecting Security Cameras
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable government surveillance. Private security cameras are not subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions because the Fourth Amendment applies only to government action. However, if police direct you to install a camera to monitor a specific person, the Fourth Amendment may apply to the resulting footage.
Federal Wiretap Act
The federal Wiretap Act under 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 applies to audio captured by security cameras. The federal statute permits interception when one party to the conversation consents, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. Section 2511(2)(d)). Unlike Missouri's statute, its one-party exception expressly covers oral as well as wire communications. Video-only recording does not trigger federal wiretap liability.
Explore More Missouri Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Missouri Recording Laws
More Missouri Recording Topics
See Also
- Missouri Surveillance Camera Laws covers home, HOA, neighbor, workplace, and landlord camera rules in Missouri.
More Missouri Laws
- Missouri AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Missouri Dashcam Laws
- Missouri Data Privacy Laws
- Missouri Deepfake Laws
- Missouri Employee Monitoring Laws
- Missouri GPS Tracking Laws
- Missouri Police Bodycam Laws
- Missouri Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are security cameras legal in Missouri?
Yes. Missouri has no statute prohibiting the installation of security cameras on your own property. You can place cameras on the exterior and interior of your home or business. Restrictions apply to cameras that capture nudity in areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy (bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas), and to audio recording, where the safe practice is to have at least one party's consent.
Can my neighbor point a security camera at my house in Missouri?
A neighbor's camera can incidentally capture portions of your property visible from their vantage point. However, deliberately pointing a camera at your bedroom window, bathroom window, or enclosed private yard could create civil liability for intrusion upon seclusion. Talk to your neighbor first, and consult an attorney if the situation is not resolved.
Do I need to post signs about security cameras in Missouri?
Missouri does not have a state law requiring surveillance signage for residential or commercial properties. However, posting signs is strongly recommended because it deters crime and provides notice to visitors. A sign is not a substitute for consent to record audio, so for conversations you are not part of, the reliable choice is to turn audio off.
Can security cameras record audio in Missouri?
Missouri's wiretap statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402, reaches in-person conversations only when the device transmits by radio or interferes with a transmission, and its private one-party consent exception is written for wire communications. The safe practice, consistent with the federal Wiretap Act, is to record audio only where at least one party to a captured conversation consents. When you take part in a conversation captured by your camera, your participation provides consent; being in the room or living in the home does not make you a party to other people's conversations. For unattended cameras, the reliable choice is to disable audio.
Can a landlord put security cameras inside my apartment in Missouri?
No Missouri statute specifically addresses it, but a landlord who puts a camera inside your occupied unit takes on serious risk. Tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside their homes: a camera that records you undressed is a crime under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252, recording your conversations can violate the federal Wiretap Act, and even video-only monitoring can support a civil intrusion upon seclusion claim. Landlords can install cameras in common areas of multi-unit properties such as lobbies, hallways, and parking lots.
Updates
We corrected this page to explain that your consent covers only conversations you take part in, so an indoor or doorbell camera recording other people's conversations is not protected by your presence in the home, that a posted sign gives notice but has not been held to be consent, that Missouri has no statute specifically banning landlord cameras in a unit (the real exposure is criminal invasion of privacy, wiretap law and intrusion upon seclusion), and that Missouri has the Uniform Condominium Act, not the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected how the page describes Missouri's wiretap statute for security-camera audio: Mo. Rev. Stat. 542.402 reaches in-person conversations only through radio-transmitting or interfering devices and its private one-party exception covers wire communications, so the one-party consent practice now rests on the federal Wiretap Act.
Removed references to Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.253, which was repealed in 2017; the nudity-recording rule this page describes is fully covered by the current invasion of privacy statute, Section 565.252, alone.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected three overstated claims that any camera in a bathroom, guest bedroom, or private area violates Missouri voyeurism law; the statute requires the camera to capture nudity or record under/through clothing, not just be present in a private-expectation space.
Added the statutory nudity qualifier to the FAQ answer and the business-camera-locations table so they match the corrected passages elsewhere on the page: Missouri's voyeurism statute is violated by a camera that captures nudity, not merely by a camera's presence in a bathroom, locker room, or changing area.
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.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVII (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), Chapter 542
§ 542.402Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.400 to 542.422, a person is guilty of a class E felony and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law, if such person: (1) Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication; (2) Knowingly 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 transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; provided, however, that nothing in sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall be construed to prohibit the use by law enforcement officers of body microphones and transmitters in undercover investigations for the acquisition of evidence and the protection of law enforcement officers and others working under their direction in such investigations; (3) Knowingly discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts in Missouri have applied section 542.402 to covert audio recording. Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (2025) let a wiretap count over recorded attorney-client jail calls proceed, with no prior consent shown, and Ward (2026) found a claim over a secretly recorded workplace conversation would not be futile.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…nn. § 750 .539e (West 1991); Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2000); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (19…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…p. 1995); Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 626A.02, 626A.13 (West 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 542.402 , 542.418 (1996); Mont.Code Ann. § 45-8…”
- John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2025, 126 F.4th 1329)✓Patients alleged a hospital's patient portal secretly sent health data to Facebook, pleading a Missouri wiretap claim under 542.402; the Eighth Circuit addressed only removal, held the wiretap count did not change that analysis, and affirmed remand without reaching its merits.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Smart Glasses Recording Laws, Missouri Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Missouri Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565
§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484)“…contends, because the Missouri invasioh-of-privacy statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
- T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915)“…e where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252.1(1). Reasonable officers could have be…”
- United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)“…contends, because the Missouri invasion-of-privacy statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Missouri Video Recording Laws: Public Spaces, Private Property, and Consent Rules
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXIX (CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS), Chapter 610
§ 610.100Arrest and incident records — definitions — available to public — closed records, when — action for disclosure of investigative report authorized, costs — application to open incident and arrest reports, violations, civil penalty — identity of victim of sexual offense — confidentiality of recording.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
1. As used in sections 610.100 to 610.150, the following words and phrases shall mean: (1) "Arrest", an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his or her submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise for a criminal violation which results in the issuance of a summons or the person being booked; (2) "Arrest report", a record of a law enforcement agency of an arrest and of any detention or confinement incident thereto together with the charge therefor; (3) "Inactive", an investigation in which no further action will be taken by a law enforcement agency or officer for any of the following reasons: (a) A decision by the law enforcement agency not to pursue the case; (b) Expiration of the time to file criminal charges pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations, or ten years after the commission of the offense; whichever date earliest occurs; (c) Finality of the convictions of all persons convicted on the basis of the information contained in the investigative report, by exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal of such persons; (4) "Incident report", a record of a law enforcement agency consisting of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Buckler v. Johnson County Sheriff's Department (1989) held section 610.100 permits closure of an arrest record but does not authorize expungement, which rests on a court's equitable power. D.K.B. v. Toelke (1995) held the 1994 amendment closing pre-arrest investigative reports did not remove the remedies in section 610.027.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Buckler v. Johnson County Sheriff's Department (Missouri Court of Appeals 1989, 798 S.W.2d 155)✓A man arrested for investigation of rape but never charged asked to erase the record; the court held section 610.100 allows only closure and not expungement, then found extraordinary circumstances letting it order expungement under its equitable power.
- D.K.B. v. Toelke (Missouri Court of Appeals 1995, 903 S.W.2d 267)✓A mother won access to a sheriff's investigation file, then lost fines and fees after a 1994 amendment closed pre-arrest investigative reports; the court held that amendment to section 610.100 did not withdraw the remedies in section 610.027 and remanded.
- Opinion No. (1994) (Missouri Attorney General Reports 1994)✓Asked how the 1994 amendment worked, the Attorney General opined that section 610.100 closes investigative reports mandatorily until an arrest is made, while incident reports stay open except for 911 information and the name of a victim who can identify an assailant at large.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits, Missouri License Plate Reader Laws (2026), Are Autopsy Reports Public in Missouri? (2026 Guide)
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?
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXIX (CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS), Chapter 610 § 610.010 (Definitions.)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 - Wiretapping(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252 - Voyeurism(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610 - Sunshine Law(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 610.100 - Law Enforcement Records(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)