South Dakota
South Dakota Voyeurism Laws
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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
South Dakota criminalizes two distinct forms of voyeuristic recording. SDCL 22-21-4 prohibits using any device to photograph or record someone without clothing, or under or through their clothing, without consent and with intent to self-gratify or to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to the person recorded. SDCL 22-21-1 separately bans hidden cameras in private places, and SDCL 50-15-5 covers drone surveillance of private places.
South Dakota has two primary statutes that address voyeurism and hidden camera offenses. SDCL 22-21-4 prohibits using any device to photograph or visually record someone without their clothing, or under or through their clothing, without consent and with intent to self-gratify or to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to the person recorded. SDCL 22-21-1 prohibits installing a surveillance device in a private place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there, or using such an installation.
This guide covers the full scope of South Dakota's voyeurism and hidden camera laws, including what conduct is prohibited, the criminal penalties, how these laws interact with the state's wiretapping statute, and the new 2026 deepfake protections.
South Dakota's Voyeurism Statute (SDCL 22-21-4)
What the Law Prohibits
Under SDCL 22-21-4, no person may use any device to photograph or visually record another person:
- Without clothing -- capturing images of a person who is nude or partially nude
- Under or through their clothing -- using a camera angled to see beneath or through someone's garments
- Without the person's consent -- the subject has not agreed to be photographed or recorded in this manner
- With the required intent -- the recording is made with intent to self-gratify, or to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to the subject
This statute applies in both public and private settings. Even on a public street or in a store, using a camera to capture images up someone's skirt or down their shirt violates this law.
Elements Prosecutors Must Prove
To secure a conviction under SDCL 22-21-4, prosecutors must establish:
- The defendant used a device to photograph or visually record another person
- The recording captured the person without clothing, or under or through their clothing
- The person recorded did not consent
- The defendant acted with intent to self-gratify, or to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to the victim
The intent element is critical. A person who accidentally captures an image that reveals undergarments has not committed voyeurism unless the prosecution can show deliberate intent.
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voyeuristic recording or sharing, first offense | Class 1 Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,000 |
| Victim 17 or younger, perpetrator 21 or older | Class 6 Felony | 2 years | $4,000 |
| Any subsequent violation | Class 6 Felony | 2 years | $4,000 |
| Sexual deepfake of an identifiable person (22-21-4(3)) | Class 5 Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
A felony conviction under SDCL 22-21-4 for using a recording device or disseminating a recording is a sex crime under SDCL 22-24B-1(23) and requires sex offender registration. That subdivision predates SB 41, so whether a felony for creating a deepfake under 22-21-4(3) requires registration has not been tested.
The enhanced penalty for offenses involving minors reflects South Dakota's recognition that children and teenagers are particularly vulnerable to this type of exploitation. The age threshold requires the perpetrator to be at least 21 and the victim to be 17 or younger.
Manipulated Images Under SDCL 22-21-4
SDCL 22-21-4 also addresses manipulated images. Before 2026, it barred knowingly disseminating or selling a realistic manipulated image showing a person nude or in a sexual act without their consent or knowledge. SB 41, effective July 1, 2026, rewrote that prong: it now also covers creating such digitally fabricated material of an identifiable person, and a violation is a Class 5 felony.
Hidden Camera Law (SDCL 22-21-1)
What the Law Prohibits
SDCL 22-21-1 addresses hidden cameras and surveillance devices more broadly than the voyeurism statute. Under this law, it is a Class 1 misdemeanor to:
- Trespass on property with the intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place
- Install any device in a private place, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there, for the purpose of observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events
- Use any such unauthorized installation to observe, photograph, record, amplify, or broadcast sounds or events
Drone surveillance is covered by a separate statute, SDCL 50-15-5, discussed below.
How SDCL 22-21-1 Differs From the Voyeurism Statute
The two statutes target different types of conduct:
| Feature | SDCL 22-21-4 (Voyeurism) | SDCL 22-21-1 (Hidden Cameras) |
|---|---|---|
| Location | Public or private | Private places only |
| Type of recording | Under/through clothing or nudity | Any observation or recording |
| Intent required | Self-gratification, or intent to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade privacy, threaten, or cause harm | Trespass prong: intent to surveil; installation prong: lack of consent of those entitled to privacy |
| Drone coverage | Not specifically addressed | Not covered; drones fall under SDCL 50-15-5 |
| Law enforcement exemption | No specific exemption stated | Exempts officers acting lawfully |
A single act can violate both statutes. For example, placing a hidden camera in a bathroom to record someone undressing violates SDCL 22-21-1 (hidden camera in a private place) and SDCL 22-21-4 (recording without clothing, without consent, with intent to self-gratify).
The Law Enforcement Exception
SDCL 22-21-1 specifically exempts law enforcement officers, or those acting under their direction, while engaged in the performance of their lawful duties. This exception allows police to use surveillance cameras and recording devices during authorized investigations, including executing search warrants and conducting lawful surveillance operations.
Where Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws Apply
Private Places
The strongest protections apply in locations where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Bathrooms and restrooms -- residential, and possibly commercial or public ones (see the caveat below)
- Locker rooms and changing areas -- in gyms, pools, schools, and workplaces, subject to the same caveat
- Bedrooms -- including hotel and motel rooms
- Medical examination rooms -- including doctor's offices and clinics
- Dressing rooms -- in retail stores and theaters
- Private residences -- any enclosed area within a home
SDCL 22-21-1 bars installing a camera or recorder in a private place without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there. South Dakota defines a private place as one where a person can reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but the definition excludes places the public or a substantial group can enter, so whether it covers a shared public restroom or a communal locker room depends on the facts. Recording anyone undressed, or under or through their clothing, in any of these places is separately a crime under SDCL 22-21-4.
Public Places
SDCL 22-21-4 extends voyeurism protections to public places. Even on a busy sidewalk, using a device to record under someone's clothing is illegal. However, SDCL 22-21-1 generally does not apply in public because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Standard photography and video recording of people in public spaces remains legal under South Dakota law, as long as the recording is not made under or through someone's clothing.
The Workplace
Employers who install hidden cameras in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy risk violating SDCL 22-21-1. A camera that records employees undressed in a bathroom, locker room, or changing area without consent can violate SDCL 22-21-4, and one installed in a private place without consent can violate SDCL 22-21-1. Cameras in common work areas such as sales floors, warehouses, and shared offices are generally permissible.
Drone Surveillance and Voyeurism
South Dakota has a drone-specific statute. SDCL 50-15-5 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine) to intentionally use a drone to photograph, record, or otherwise observe another person in a private place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It exempts law enforcement, emergency management workers, and business or government operators who capture someone only incidentally. SDCL 50-15-5.1 separately makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to fly a drone for voyeuristic or harassment purposes.
This provision is particularly relevant because drones can reach windows, backyards, and other areas that would be difficult to access with traditional surveillance equipment. Flying a drone to peer into someone's bedroom window can violate these statutes.
Federal Aviation Administration regulations also govern drone operations in South Dakota, including altitude restrictions, line-of-sight requirements, and no-fly zones near airports.
Nonconsensual Intimate Images ("Revenge Porn")
South Dakota addresses the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images in the same statute. SDCL 22-21-4(2) makes it a crime to share, distribute, or sell a recording of someone undressed or under their clothing without the depicted person's consent or knowledge, with intent to harass, embarrass, or harm them.
The 2026 legislative session expanded these protections with SB 41, signed by Governor Larry Rhoden on March 16, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026. SB 41 amends SDCL 22-21-4 to make creation or distribution of AI-generated deepfake images depicting a real, identifiable person in a state of nudity or in a sexually explicit act, without consent, a Class 5 felony. Attorney General Marty Jackley proposed the legislation.
SB 164, signed by Governor Larry Rhoden on March 25, 2025, separately makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to distribute a deepfake of a candidate within 90 days of an election, with intent to injure the candidate, unless the deepfake carries the disclosure the law requires. Satire, parody, and qualifying news coverage are exempt.
Interaction With Federal Law
South Dakota's voyeurism and hidden camera laws operate alongside federal protections:
- The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 (18 U.S.C. 1801) makes it a federal crime to capture images of a person's private areas without consent in circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. It applies only within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, such as certain federal enclaves and U.S. ships, not to federal property in general.
- FERPA protections apply in schools, restricting how recorded images of students can be shared.
- Federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. 2511) applies to audio captured by hidden cameras.
Reporting Voyeurism in South Dakota
If you are a victim of voyeurism or discover a hidden camera, you should:
- Contact local law enforcement immediately. Report the incident to your local police department or sheriff's office.
- Do not disturb the device. If you find a hidden camera, leave it in place for law enforcement to collect as evidence.
- Document everything. Note the date, time, location, and any details about the device.
- Preserve any evidence. If you received images or know about their distribution, do not delete them; instead provide them to law enforcement.
- Consult an attorney. While South Dakota's wiretapping statute does not provide a civil remedy, other causes of action such as invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress may be available.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden camera in private place | SDCL 22-21-1 | Class 1 Misdemeanor | 1 year jail, $2,000 fine |
| Drone surveillance of private place | SDCL 50-15-5 | Class 1 Misdemeanor | 1 year jail, $2,000 fine |
| Voyeuristic recording, first offense | SDCL 22-21-4 | Class 1 Misdemeanor | 1 year jail, $2,000 fine |
| Voyeuristic recording (victim 17 or younger, perpetrator 21+) | SDCL 22-21-4 | Class 6 Felony | 2 years prison, $4,000 fine |
| Voyeuristic recording, subsequent violation | SDCL 22-21-4 | Class 6 Felony | 2 years prison, $4,000 fine |
| Sexual deepfake of an identifiable person | SDCL 22-21-4(3) | Class 5 Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Illegal wiretapping (audio) | SDCL 23A-35A-20 | Class 5 Felony | 5 years prison, $10,000 fine |
More South Dakota 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 South Dakota Recording Laws
More South Dakota Recording Topics
More South Dakota Laws
- South Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws
- South Dakota Dashcam Laws
- South Dakota Data Privacy Laws
- South Dakota Deepfake Laws
- South Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws
- South Dakota GPS Tracking Laws
- South Dakota Police Bodycam Laws
- South Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is voyeurism a felony in South Dakota?
A first voyeurism offense under SDCL 22-21-4 is usually a Class 1 misdemeanor. It is a Class 6 felony, carrying up to 2 years in prison and a $4,000 fine, when the victim is 17 or younger and the perpetrator is 21 or older, and any repeat violation is also a Class 6 felony. A felony conviction for recording or sharing such an image requires sex offender registration. Creating or sharing a sexual deepfake of an identifiable person is a Class 5 felony; whether a conviction for creating one requires registration has not been tested.
Are hidden cameras illegal in South Dakota?
Hidden cameras are illegal in private places under SDCL 22-21-1. Installing a surveillance device in a private place, such as a home bathroom or bedroom, without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there, or using such an installation, is a Class 1 misdemeanor, and recording anyone undressed without consent is a separate crime under SDCL 22-21-4. Hidden cameras in public spaces are not specifically prohibited by this statute.
Can I use a drone to record someone in South Dakota?
You can use a drone to record in public spaces, subject to FAA rules. However, SDCL 50-15-5 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine, to intentionally use a drone to photograph, record, or observe someone in a private place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. SDCL 50-15-5.1 also bars flying a drone for voyeuristic or harassment purposes.
What should I do if I find a hidden camera in South Dakota?
Contact local law enforcement immediately. Do not disturb the device, as it may be needed as evidence. Document the date, time, and location. You may also want to consult an attorney about potential civil claims such as invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Does South Dakota have a revenge porn law?
South Dakota addresses nonconsensual distribution of intimate images through SDCL 22-21-4, which makes it a crime to share a recording of someone undressed without their consent or knowledge. SB 41, effective July 1, 2026, made creating or sharing AI-generated sexual deepfakes of an identifiable person a Class 5 felony. SB 164 (2025) covers undisclosed deepfakes of candidates distributed close to an election.
Updates
We clarified that whether a commercial or public restroom is a private place under South Dakota law is uncertain.
Aligned the private-places list with the statutory definition, which may exclude shared public restrooms and communal locker rooms.
We completed the SDCL 22-21-4 penalty tiers (repeat violations are felonies, felony convictions require registration, sexual deepfakes are a Class 5 felony), cited the correct drone statute (SDCL 50-15-5), clarified how South Dakota defines a private place for shared restrooms and locker rooms, corrected the reach of the federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, and corrected the scope of SB 164 and what SB 41 changed. Clarified that SDCL 22-21-1 covers installing a device in a private place without consent or using such an installation, that intimate-image sharing is covered by the same statute (22-21-4(2)), and that registration for the new deepfake-creation felony is untested.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of the intent element in South Dakota's voyeurism statute (SDCL 22-21-4) to match its current text, which covers intent to self-gratify or to alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade privacy, threaten, or cause harm.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the penalty for South Dakota's SB 41 AI-deepfake provision (SDCL 22-21-4(3)) from Class 6 felony to the statute's actual Class 5 felony classification.
Corrected several claims that SDCL 22-21-1 'specifically addresses' or 'specifically covers' drones: the statute's text is device-neutral and never mentions drones, though its general language is broad enough to reach drone surveillance in private places.
Clarified in the intro, a KeyTakeaways bullet, and the Sources box citation label that SDCL 22-21-1 does not name drones specifically; its general device-surveillance language is broad enough to reach drone use, matching the correction already made in the Drone Surveillance section, comparison table, and FAQ.
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.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-21: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY
§ 22-21-4Prohibited recording or manipulated image--Penalty.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
No individual, without the consent or knowledge of the individual depicted or recorded, and with the intent to self-gratify or alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to that individual, may: (1) Intentionally use any device to photograph or visually record the individual without clothing or under or through the clothing, or with a third individual depicted in a sexual act, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, the individual; (2) Intentionally disclose, disseminate, distribute, sell, or use, by any means, any recording or photograph described in subdivision (1); or (3) Knowingly and intentionally create, disclose, disseminate, distribute, or sell, by any means, digitally fabricated material depicting the identifiable individual: (a) In a state of nudity, as defined in § 22-24A-2, such that an ordinary person viewing the material would conclude that the depiction is of the identifiable individual in such a state of nudity; or (b) Engaging in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, deviant sexual activity, or sexually explicit conduct such that an…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2006
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Blair (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 721 N.W.2d 55)“…w peeking under SDCL 22- 21-3, or with a misdemeanor under SDCL 22-21-4 for taking pictures of someone in 17.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Guide, South Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Dakota Laws on Recording in Public
§ 22-21-1Eavesdropping--Privacy--Misdemeanor.In forcecited in 15 of our articles
No person may, except as authorized by law: (1) Trespass on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Install in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in such place, or uses any such unauthorized installation. A person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Subdivision (2) does not apply to law enforcement officers, or to those acting under the direction of a law enforcement officer, while engaged in the performance of the officer's lawful duties.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Olson (South Dakota Supreme Court 1981, 305 N.W.2d 852)“…9,1980, appellant was arraigned on four counts of violating SDCL 22-21-1(1) 1 and one count of viol…”
- State v. Reif (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 490 N.W.2d 511)“…d to "reasonably satisfy" the court that appellant violated SDCL 22-21-1(1) and that these activities were suffi…”
- Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)“…Further, placing such a device is a class one misdemeanor. SDCL 22-21-1(2), provides in part that:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Audio Recording Laws, South Dakota Dashcam Laws, South Dakota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 23A-35A: INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
§ 23A-35A-20Overhearing or recording communications, conversations, or jury deliberations by means of eavesdropping device as felony.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
Except as provided in § 23A-35A-21, a person is guilty of a Class 5 felony who is not: (1) A sender or receiver of a communication who intentionally and by means of an eavesdropping device overhears or records a communication, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to overhear or record, without the consent of either a sender or receiver of the communication; (2) A person present during a conversation or discussion who intentionally and by means of an eavesdropping device overhears or records the conversation or discussion, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to overhear or record, without the consent of a party to the conversation or discussion; or (3) A member of a jury who intentionally records or listens to by means of an eavesdropping device the deliberations of the jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to record or listen.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Woods (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 361 N.W.2d 620)“…ent fails. We next address the State’s argument that SDCL 23A-35A-20(2) exempts one party consent recordings…”
- State v. Braddock (South Dakota Supreme Court 1990, 452 N.W.2d 785)“…nsent recordings without prior court authorization” because SDCL 23A-35A-20 exempts from criminal liability a perso…”
- Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)“…ff when no noise was detected in the room. 3. SDCL 23A-35A-20(1)–(2), which criminalizes recordings m…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Medical Recording Laws, South Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws, South Dakota Laws on Recording Police
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Delaware Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026)
§ 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
- SDCL 22-21-4 -- Voyeuristic Recording and Manipulated Images(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 22-21-1 -- Trespassing With Intent to Eavesdrop; Hidden Cameras(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL Chapter 22-21 -- Privacy Offenses(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 23A-35A-20 -- Interception of Communications(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 1801 -- Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004(uscode.house.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(uscode.house.gov).gov
- South Dakota Attorney General -- Conducting the Public's Business in Public(atg.sd.gov).gov