Nebraska
Nebraska Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (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. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Nebraska is a one-party consent state under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290, meaning you can legally record any phone call or in-person conversation you participate in without notifying the other parties. Recording becomes a Class IV felony only when no participant has consented or when the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Quick Answer
Nebraska allows audio recording with one-party consent. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290, you can record any in-person conversation or phone call as long as you are a participant or have consent from at least one person involved. You do not need to notify or get permission from the other parties. The recording becomes illegal only when no party has consented or when it is made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
| Detail | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent Type | One-party |
| Primary Statute | Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290 |
| Can you record your own conversations? | Yes |
| Must you tell the other person? | No |
| Criminal penalty for violations | Class IV felony (up to 2 years prison, a $10,000 fine, or both) |
| Civil statute of limitations | 2 years from discovery |
| Biometric data law | No BIPA-style law (LB204 postponed Apr 17, 2026); covered businesses need consent under Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1112 unless exempt |
The Legal Foundation: Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290
Nebraska's wiretapping and electronic surveillance statutes are codified in Chapter 86 of the Nebraska Revised Statutes, covering sections 86-271 through 86-2,115. The central provision governing audio recording is Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290, which establishes both the prohibition on unauthorized interception and the one-party consent exception.

What the Statute Prohibits
Section 86-290 makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure another person to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication. The statute covers three distinct categories of communication:
- Wire communications -- Transmissions made through wire, cable, or similar connections, including landline telephone calls and wired internet communications
- Electronic communications -- Transmissions of signals, writing, images, sounds, or data through electronic means, including email, text messages, and digital voice calls
- Oral communications -- Spoken words uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is not being intercepted
The prohibition extends beyond the act of recording itself. It is also unlawful to disclose or use the contents of any communication that was illegally intercepted, knowing or having reason to know that the interception violated the statute.
The One-Party Consent Exception
The critical exception in section 86-290 permits recording when at least one party to the communication consents. In practice, this means you can record any conversation you are part of without informing the other participants. The consent of one participant is sufficient to make the recording lawful.
This exception mirrors the approach taken by federal wiretap law under 18 U.S.C. 2511. The Nebraska Supreme Court has looked to federal interpretations of the Wiretap Act for guidance when interpreting the state statute.
The Criminal or Tortious Purpose Limitation
Nebraska's one-party consent exception comes with an important caveat. The recording must not be made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law. Even if you are a party to the conversation, your recording can be deemed illegal if your purpose is:
- Blackmail or extortion
- Harassment or stalking
- Facilitating any crime
- Invasion of privacy or other civil wrongs (torts)
This limitation means that the legality of a recording depends not only on whether you had consent but also on your intent at the time you made the recording. A court examining a disputed recording will consider the surrounding circumstances to determine whether the recorder had an improper purpose.
Types of Audio Recording Covered

In-Person Conversations
You can record face-to-face conversations in Nebraska as long as you are an active participant. This includes conversations at home, in offices, at restaurants, and in any other setting where you are directly involved.
However, you cannot plant a hidden recording device and leave the room to capture conversations between other people. If you are not present as a participant, you need the consent of at least one person who is part of the conversation.
The statute specifically addresses "oral communications," which are defined as spoken words uttered by a person who exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception. In public places where conversations can be easily overheard, the expectation of privacy is lower, and recording may be permissible even without direct participation.
Telephone Calls
Nebraska's one-party consent rule applies equally to all types of telephone communications:
- Traditional landline calls
- Cellular phone calls
- Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls
- Video calls with an audio component (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime)
You can record any phone call you are a party to without notifying the other person. There is no requirement to play a tone, announce the recording, or obtain verbal agreement.
Digital and Electronic Communications
The statute's reference to "electronic communications" extends its reach to modern digital platforms. While the primary concern of audio recording laws is spoken conversation, the interception of any electronic transmission falls within the statute's scope. This includes:
- Recording audio from voice messages or voicemails
- Capturing audio from video conferencing platforms
- Intercepting audio streams from messaging applications
Radio Communications
Nebraska law includes specific provisions regarding radio communications. The interception of certain radio portions of cellular or cordless telephone conversations may be treated differently for penalty purposes. A first offense that intercepts an unscrambled, unencrypted radio communication, with no illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose, is a Class I misdemeanor, carrying up to one year in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both, except that interception of the radio portion of a cellular telephone, public land mobile radio service, or paging service communication is the lesser Class III misdemeanor. Every other interception is a Class IV felony.
What Makes a Recording Illegal in Nebraska
No-Party Consent Recordings
The most straightforward violation occurs when someone records a conversation without being a party to it and without obtaining consent from any participant. Examples include:
- Placing a hidden microphone in a room to record others' private conversations
- Using software to intercept phone calls between two other people
- Tapping into a neighbor's phone line or Wi-Fi to capture their communications
- Using a parabolic microphone or other amplification device to eavesdrop from a distance
Recordings Made for Illegal Purposes
Even with one-party consent, a recording is illegal if it is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Nebraska courts evaluate the intent behind the recording based on the totality of circumstances. A recording made to gather evidence for a legitimate legal proceeding is generally considered lawful, while a recording made to harass, threaten, or coerce another person may not be protected by the consent exception.
Disclosure of Illegally Obtained Recordings
Sharing, publishing, or using the contents of a recording that was obtained in violation of section 86-290 is itself a separate offense. This prohibition applies even if you were not the person who made the illegal recording. If you receive a recording and know or have reason to know that it was obtained illegally, using or disclosing its contents exposes you to the same criminal and civil penalties.
Criminal Penalties

Nebraska imposes tiered criminal penalties for illegal audio recording under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception of wire or electronic communication | Class IV Felony | Up to 2 years prison and 12 months post-release supervision, up to a $10,000 fine, or both |
| Interception of unencrypted radio communication (first offense, no illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose) | Class I misdemeanor; Class III misdemeanor if cellular, public land mobile, or paging radio | Up to 1 year jail, up to $1,000 fine, or both (Class I) |
| Violating an injunction under 86-290(5) | Civil Contempt | Minimum $500 fine per violation |
Class IV Felony Sentencing in Nebraska
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, Nebraska courts must impose probation for most Class IV felony convictions unless the defendant is serving consecutive felony sentences, was originally charged with a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, IIA, III, or IIIA felony, has been determined to be a habitual offender, or cannot be safely supervised in the community. This means that most first-time illegal wiretapping convictions result in a probationary sentence rather than incarceration, though a defendant who was originally charged with a higher felony class before being convicted of the Class IV offense may not get that presumption.
Federal Penalties
Illegal wiretapping may also violate federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511, which carries penalties of up to five years in federal prison and fines. Federal prosecution is more likely when the interception crosses state lines or involves sophisticated surveillance equipment.
Civil Remedies
Victims of illegal audio recording in Nebraska can pursue civil remedies under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297. The court may award:
- Equitable and declaratory relief -- Courts can issue injunctions to stop ongoing violations
- Statutory damages -- $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater, if that exceeds actual damages and profits combined
- Actual damages -- Compensation for proven financial harm
- Profits -- Any profits the violator gained from the illegal recording
- Attorney's fees -- Reasonable legal costs and litigation expenses
The statute of limitations for civil claims is two years from the date the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. A good faith reliance on a court order, warrant, grand jury subpoena, or statutory authorization is a complete defense.
LB204: Indefinitely Postponed

LB204 (the Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law) was indefinitely postponed by the Nebraska Legislature on April 17, 2026 and did not become law. Nebraska has no enacted BIPA-style biometric privacy statute. But the Nebraska Data Privacy Act treats biometric data processed to identify a person, including voiceprints, as sensitive data, and a covered business may not process it without the consumer's consent (Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1112, 87-1102). The Act exempts small businesses (87-1103), employee data, purely personal or household use, and processing to prevent security incidents, fraud, or illegal activity (87-1126).
Because LB204 was not enacted, Nebraska has no standalone biometric law. Businesses outside the Data Privacy Act, or within one of its exemptions, face no state biometric consent requirement, though federal law and Nebraska's statutory invasion-of-privacy action (Neb. Rev. Stat. 20-203, filed within one year under 20-211) still apply.
Interstate Recording: When Other States' Laws Apply
Nebraska's one-party consent law applies to recordings made within the state. When you record a conversation that crosses state lines, the legal analysis becomes more complicated.
The General Rule
When you are in Nebraska and the other party is in a two-party consent state, the stricter law may apply. States requiring all-party consent include California, Connecticut (phone calls), Delaware (conflicting statutes), Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada (phone calls), New Hampshire, Oregon (in-person conversations only), Pennsylvania, and Washington.
Protecting Yourself
If you regularly record calls with people in other states, the safest approach is to inform all parties and obtain consent. This protects you from liability under the strictest applicable law. Our recording consent checker can show you what that stricter rule requires before you place the call. Even if Nebraska law permits your recording, you could face prosecution or a civil lawsuit in the other party's state if that state requires all-party consent.
Employer Exception for Audio Monitoring
Nebraska law includes a narrow carve-out for employer monitoring. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(a), an employer on its business premises, a switchboard operator, or an officer, employee, or agent of a communications provider may intercept, disclose, or use a wire communication in the normal course of employment only while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to providing its service or to protecting the provider's rights or property.
The statute adds a second limit. Employers and providers may not use service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical, service-quality, or performance control checks, and only if employees receive reasonable notice of the random-monitoring policy.
Separately, a business that is itself a party to a customer call can record that call under the one-party rule in 86-290(2)(c), as long as the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. In practice:
- A business can record customer calls it takes part in under the one-party rule
- Random monitoring of employee calls for quality or performance checks requires reasonable notice to employees of the monitoring policy
- Monitoring for other purposes is not covered by the employer exception
Monitoring employees' personal calls or recording in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as break rooms designated for personal calls) may exceed the scope of this exception.
Using Audio Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in Nebraska Courts
Audio recordings made in compliance with Nebraska's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in both civil and criminal proceedings. Courts evaluate recordings based on:
- Authentication -- The proponent must demonstrate the recording is genuine, unaltered, and accurately represents what was said
- Relevance -- The recording must relate to the issues being litigated
- Hearsay -- Recorded statements may be excluded as hearsay unless a recognized exception applies
- Prejudice vs. probative value -- The court may exclude recordings whose prejudicial impact substantially outweighs their evidentiary value
Illegally Obtained Recordings
A recording made in violation of section 86-290 can be suppressed in civil and criminal cases alike. Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-293(11) lets any aggrieved person move to suppress it in any trial, hearing, or proceeding before a Nebraska court or agency, and federal law (18 U.S.C. 2515) bars evidence intercepted in violation of the federal wiretap act from state and federal proceedings. The person who made the recording may also face prosecution and a claim for damages.
Nebraska Data Privacy Act
The Nebraska Data Privacy Act (LB1074), signed on April 17, 2024, and effective January 1, 2025, adds another layer of regulation for businesses that process personal data in Nebraska. While this act does not change audio recording consent rules, businesses that store, analyze, or share recorded conversations as "personal data" must comply with its transparency and consumer rights requirements.
Key provisions include:
- Consumers have the right to know what personal data is collected about them
- Consumers can request deletion of their personal data
- Businesses must disclose their data collection and processing practices
- The Nebraska Attorney General has enforcement authority
More Nebraska 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 Nebraska Recording Laws
More Nebraska Recording Topics
More Nebraska Laws
- Nebraska AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Nebraska Dashcam Laws
- Nebraska Data Privacy Laws
- Nebraska Deepfake Laws
- Nebraska Employee Monitoring Laws
- Nebraska GPS Tracking Laws
- Nebraska Police Bodycam Laws
- Nebraska Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a conversation in Nebraska without telling the other person?
Yes. Nebraska is a one-party consent state under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290. As long as you are a participant in the conversation, you can record it without notifying or obtaining permission from any other participant. The only restriction is that the recording cannot be made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
What are the penalties for illegal audio recording in Nebraska?
Illegal interception of wire or electronic communications is a Class IV felony, carrying up to 2 years in prison plus 12 months of post-release supervision, a $10,000 fine, or both. However, Nebraska law requires probation for most first-time Class IV felony convictions. A first offense intercepting unencrypted radio communications, with no illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose, is generally a Class I misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both, except that cellular, public land mobile, or paging radio communications carry the lesser Class III misdemeanor.
Can I record a phone call in Nebraska?
Yes. You can record any phone call you participate in, including landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. Nebraska one-party consent law does not require you to inform the other caller. If you are calling someone in a two-party consent state, the stricter law of that state may apply.
Does Nebraska's Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law affect audio recording?
Not directly. LB204 (Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law) was indefinitely postponed on April 17, 2026 and never became law. Nebraska has no BIPA-style biometric statute. You can record conversations under the one-party consent rule; a separate consent duty arises only if a business covered by the Nebraska Data Privacy Act processes voiceprints to identify someone.
Can I sue someone for recording me without my consent in Nebraska?
You can sue under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297 if your conversation was illegally recorded, including by someone outside the conversation with no participant's consent or by a participant who recorded it to commit a crime or tort, and you can also sue someone who knowingly shared or used an illegal recording. The court may award either your actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greatest, along with reasonable attorney's fees. The lawsuit must be filed within 2 years of discovering the violation.
Updates
Noted in the penalty table that a Class I misdemeanor allows jail, a fine, or both.
Clarified that the Class IV felony and Class I misdemeanor penalties allow imprisonment, a fine, or both, rather than both automatically.
Corrected the statement that Nebraska has no biometric consent requirement: the Nebraska Data Privacy Act bars a covered business from processing biometric data used to identify a person without consent, with exemptions for small businesses, employee data, personal or household use, and security or fraud prevention. The affected takeaway, table row, LB204 section, FAQ and description now say so.
Corrected the employer monitoring exception (limited to necessary service activity, with notice required before random monitoring), the rule on suppressing illegal recordings in civil cases, the civil damages and who can sue, the conditions for the radio misdemeanor tiers, the all-party state list, and a description that called the postponed biometric bill a new law.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added a fourth statutory exception to mandatory probation for Class IV felony wiretapping convictions (added by a 2026 law) that the page had omitted, and added the specific-penalty citation.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected the civil statutory-damages figures ($50-$500/$100-$1,000 apply only to a narrow satellite/radio carve-out; the general rule under 86-297(3)(b) is $100/day or $10,000, whichever is greater) and clarified that first-offense radio-interception penalties split between Class I and the lesser Class III misdemeanor for cellular/paging radio.
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.
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 86: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
§ 86-290Unlawful acts; penaltyIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 86-271 to 86-295, it is unlawful to: (a) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (b) Intentionally use, endeavor to use, or procure any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (c) Intentionally disclose or endeavor 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 subsection; (d) Intentionally use or endeavor 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,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hays v. Hays (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2022)“…to her. We address these arguments, in turn. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) (Reissue 2016), “it is not unlawf…”
- Ades v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (District Court, C.D. California 2014, 46 F. Supp. 3d 999)“…f the carrier or provider of such communication services.”' Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-290(2)(a). Based on this provision, Omni co…”
- Lewton Ex Rel. Lewton v. Divingnzzo (District Court, D. Nebraska 2011, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1046)“…7) to exclude the recordings as illegally intercepted under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-290(a) (see Doc. 137-16 at p.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Nebraska Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Nebraska Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026)
§ 86-297Interception; civil actionIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-295 and 86-298 to 86-2,103 may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. (2) In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes: (a) Such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (b) Damages under subsection (3) of this section; and (c) Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (3)(a) In an action under this section, if the conduct in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-295 and 86-298 to 86-2,103 is the private viewing of a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or if the communication is a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated for remote pickup broadcast stations under subpart D of 47 C.F.R.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brumbaugh v. Bendorf (Nebraska Supreme Court 2020, 945 N.W.2d 116)“…warded under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (2018) or Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297 (Reissue 2014) is addressed to the tria…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and HOAs (2026), Nebraska AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Nebraska Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 28: CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
§ 28-105Felonies; classification of penalties; sentences; where served; eligibility for probationIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
(1) For purposes of the Nebraska Criminal Code and any statute passed by the Legislature after the date of passage of the code, felonies are divided into ten classes which are distinguished from one another by the following penalties which are authorized upon conviction: Class I felony Death Class IA felony Life imprisonment Class IB felony Maximum—life imprisonment Minimum—twenty years imprisonment Class IC felony Maximum—fifty years imprisonment Mandatory minimum—five years imprisonment Class ID felony Maximum—fifty years imprisonment Mandatory minimum—three years imprisonment Class II felony Maximum—fifty years imprisonment Minimum—one year imprisonment Class IIA felony Maximum—twenty years imprisonment Minimum—none Class III felony Maximum—four years imprisonment and two years post-release supervision or twenty-five thousand dollars fine, or both Minimum—none for imprisonment and none for post-release supervision Class IIIA felony Maximum—three years imprisonment and eighteen months post-release supervision or ten thousand dollars fine, or both Minimum—none for imprisonment and none for post-release supervision Class IV felony Maximum—two years imprisonment and twelve months…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 941 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Iromuanya (Nebraska Supreme Court 2006, 272 Neb. 178)“…ar's imprisonment and a maximum of 50-years' imprisonment. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (1) (Cum. Supp. 2004) and §§ 28-201(4)(…”
- State v. Stephens (Nebraska Supreme Court 1991, 237 Neb. 551)“…28-319(2), punishable by from 1 to 50 years’ imprisonment, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (1) (Reissue 1985). Stephens’ sentence…”
- State v. Gibson (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2018, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 559)“…I felonies are punishable by 1 to 50 years' imprisonment. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Supp. 2017). Therefore, if the court…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Nebraska Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Nebraska Assault Laws: Degrees, Felony Assault and Penalties (2026)
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 29: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
§ 29-2204.02Sentence for Class III, IIIA, or IV felony; court; duties; defendant under eighteen years of age; dispositionIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) Except when a term of probation is required by law as provided in subsection (2) of this section or except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, in imposing a sentence upon an offender for a Class III, IIIA, or IV felony, the court shall: (a) Impose a determinate sentence of imprisonment within the applicable range in section 28-105; and (b) Impose a sentence of post-release supervision, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Probation Administration, within the applicable range in section 28-105. (2) If the criminal offense is a Class IV felony, the court shall impose a sentence of probation unless: (a) The defendant is concurrently or consecutively sentenced to imprisonment for any felony other than another Class IV felony; (b) The defendant was originally charged with a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, IIA, III, or IIIA felony; (c) The defendant has been deemed a habitual criminal pursuant to section 29-2221; or (d) There are substantial and compelling reasons why the defendant cannot effectively and safely be supervised in the community, including, but not limited to, the criteria in subsections (2) and (3) of section 29-2260.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 99 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Baxter (Nebraska Supreme Court 2017, 295 Neb. 496)“…stantial and compelling reasons under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(2)(c) (Supp. 2015)…”
- State v. Shepherd (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2023)“…hority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. Id. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02 (Reissue 2016) states, in relevant part…”
- State v. Vanness (Nebraska Supreme Court 2018, 300 Neb. 159)“…ts 1, 2, and 3 should have been determinate sentences under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(1)(a) (Supp. 2015) (Class IV felonies)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Nebraska Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026), Nebraska Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026)
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
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290 -- Interception of communications; lawful and unlawful conduct(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297 -- Civil remedies for unlawful interception(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02 -- Class IV felony sentencing; mandatory probation(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- LB204 -- Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- LB1074 -- Nebraska Data Privacy Act(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105 (Class IV felony sentencing range)(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1112 -- Data Privacy Act sensitive-data consent requirement(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1102 -- Data Privacy Act definitions (biometric data, consumer, sensitive data)(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1103 -- Data Privacy Act applicability(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1126 -- Data Privacy Act construction and exemptions(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov