West Virginia
West Virginia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits
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. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

In West Virginia, the state's one-party consent law (W. Va. Code 62-1D-3) lets you record any police interaction you are part of without notifying the officer. For recording police as a bystander, the Fourth Circuit, which covers West Virginia, held in Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department (2023) that livestreaming a police traffic stop is protected speech, but it has not decided whether there is a broader First Amendment right to record police in public.
Recording police officers in West Virginia rests on two sources: the state's one-party consent wiretapping law and the First Amendment. Under W. Va. Code 62-1D-3, you can record any conversation you participate in, including interactions with law enforcement.
Recording police interactions you are not part of depends on the First Amendment. Eight federal circuits outside the Fourth recognize a right to record police in public, but in the Fourth Circuit only livestreaming a traffic stop has been held protected so far.
This guide covers every aspect of recording police in West Virginia, including your constitutional rights, practical guidelines for recording safely, what officers can and cannot do regarding your recording, body camera laws, recording in specific law enforcement contexts, and how police recordings are used as evidence.
Your Constitutional Right to Record Police
The First Amendment Foundation
The right to record police officers performing their duties in public is grounded in the First Amendment's protections for free speech and freedom of the press. Eight federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits) have held that the First Amendment protects recording police officers doing their jobs in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question.
Recognizing the right is not the same as making it "clearly established" for a damages suit: the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits each still granted the officers qualified immunity for earlier conduct.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (which covers West Virginia) addressed this question in Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023). The court held that a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop was engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment, but it granted the individual officer qualified immunity because that right was not clearly established back in 2018 when the stop occurred, and it expressly declined to decide whether there is a broader First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public. The town's livestreaming policy was sent back to the trial court on a separate claim, so whether that policy itself is constitutional remains unresolved. The eight circuits that have recognized a broader right to record police are persuasive in West Virginia but not binding.
In 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department, a Maryland federal case within the Fourth Circuit, urging the court to find that people have a First Amendment right to record police in the public discharge of their duties, and it followed up with a letter on what a constitutionally adequate police recording policy should contain. That is the federal government's stated position from that case, not a court ruling.
What You Can Record
In West Virginia, you can generally record:
- Traffic stops (including your own)
- Arrests happening in public spaces
- Police interactions with other citizens on public streets
- Officers directing traffic or responding to incidents
- Police presence at protests, demonstrations, and public events
- Your own interactions with officers during investigations or questioning
- DUI checkpoints and roadblocks
- Police use of force incidents
Where You Can Record
Your right to record police is strongest in traditional public forums and other public spaces:
| Location | Can You Record Police? | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Public streets and sidewalks | Yes | Core First Amendment protected space |
| Parks and plazas | Yes | Traditional public forums |
| Government buildings (public areas) | Usually | Open areas accessible to the public, subject to posted building rules |
| Your own property | Yes | Strong property rights support recording |
| Inside your vehicle during a traffic stop | Yes | You are a participant in the interaction |
| Private property (with owner permission) | Yes | Property owner can grant permission |
| Inside a police station (public areas) | Unsettled | No West Virginia law or Fourth Circuit decision gives a right to record inside a police station, and agencies may post rules for their buildings. Ask before recording, and leave if told to stop |
| Crime scenes behind police tape | No | Officers can restrict access for safety |
Your Rights During a Police Encounter

What Officers Cannot Do
Law enforcement officers in West Virginia generally cannot:
- Search the photos and videos on your phone without a warrant, in most situations. They can, however, take and hold a phone without a warrant in some situations, such as during an arrest or when they believe it holds evidence that could be destroyed, while they seek a warrant
- Delete your recordings or force you to delete them
- Arrest you solely for recording them in a public space
- Retaliate against you for recording. Retaliation can support a First Amendment claim, though the Fourth Circuit has not decided a general right to record police
- Make you tell them your passcode. Officers can ask, and you can decline. Courts are divided on whether police can force you to unlock a phone with your fingerprint or face: the Ninth Circuit allowed a forced thumb unlock in United States v. Payne (2024), and we have found no Fourth Circuit or West Virginia appellate ruling on the question. Even after a phone is unlocked, police generally still need a warrant to search it (Riley)
The U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v. California (2014) that police generally need a warrant to search the contents of a cell phone, including photos and videos. This protection extends to recording devices used to film police. It covers searching the device, not holding it.
No Fourth Circuit or West Virginia decision settles whether officers may order a bystander to stop recording. If an officer does, stay calm, say you do not consent, keep a safe distance, and challenge it later.
What Officers Can Do
Officers have legitimate authority to:
- Ask you to move back to a safe distance if you are too close to an active scene
- Establish a perimeter around a crime scene or dangerous situation
- Issue lawful orders related to public safety that may incidentally affect your ability to record from a specific vantage point
- Detain you briefly if they have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime (Terry stop)
- Arrest you if you physically interfere with their operations, obstruct justice, or commit another offense while recording
How to Exercise Your Rights Safely
When recording police in West Virginia, follow these practical guidelines:
- Maintain a safe distance. Stay far enough away that you do not interfere with the officers' duties. Since June 12, 2026, West Virginia law sets a 30-foot line once a first responder gives you a verbal warning not to approach (see W. Va. Code 61-5-31 below), so after a warning, stay at least 30 feet back.
- Do not physically interfere. Never step between an officer and a suspect, reach into a police vehicle, or physically touch an officer or their equipment.
- Stay calm and respectful. If an officer tells you to stop recording, calmly explain what you are doing. Say something like: "I believe I have a legal right to record in this public place. I am not interfering with your work."
- Comply with safety orders. If an officer orders you to move back for safety reasons, comply and continue recording from a greater distance.
- Do not resist if arrested. If an officer arrests you for recording, do not resist. Assert your rights later through legal channels. Resisting arrest is a separate criminal offense.
- Know your device. Learn how to quickly start recording and how to lock your device. Consider using a live-streaming app so footage is preserved even if your device is seized.
West Virginia's One-Party Consent and Police Recording

Recording Your Own Police Interactions
Under W. Va. Code 62-1D-3, you can record any interaction with police where you are a participant. This includes:
- Traffic stops where you are the driver or passenger
- Questioning by officers at your home or in public
- Encounters at DUI checkpoints
- Interviews at a police station (when you are the person being interviewed)
- Interactions with officers serving warrants or conducting searches
Your participation in the conversation provides one-party consent. You do not need to inform the officer that you are recording.
Recording Police Interactions with Others
When recording police interactions with third parties from a distance, your protection comes mainly from the First Amendment, which the Fourth Circuit has so far applied only to livestreaming a traffic stop. If your recording device captures audio of conversations you are not part of, the wiretapping statute's one-party consent requirement technically applies to the audio. However:
- Conversations occurring in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy are generally not protected "oral communications" under the statute
- Police officers performing public duties in public spaces have a diminished expectation of privacy
- Courts in other circuits that recognize the right to record police have applied it to audio as well as video (for example, the Seventh Circuit in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 2012, which concerned Illinois's eavesdropping law)
The Criminal or Tortious Purpose Exception
Even when recording police, the criminal or tortious purpose exception in W. Va. Code 62-1D-3 applies. You cannot record police for the purpose of:
- Blackmail or extortion
- Intimidating witnesses or victims
- Interfering with an ongoing investigation for corrupt purposes
- Facilitating criminal activity
Recording police to document their conduct, protect your rights, or serve as a witness is not a criminal or tortious purpose.
Police Body Cameras in West Virginia

Current Body Camera Requirements
West Virginia does not have a comprehensive statewide body camera mandate. However, many law enforcement agencies across the state have adopted body-worn camera programs voluntarily or under departmental policy. The West Virginia Division of Justice and Community Services provides guidance and grant funding to assist agencies in implementing body camera programs.
Agencies that use body cameras typically establish policies covering:
- When officers must activate cameras (traffic stops, arrests, use of force situations)
- When officers may deactivate cameras (private residences at the occupant's request, medical facilities)
- How long footage is retained
- Who can access footage and under what circumstances
- Disciplinary consequences for failing to activate cameras or tampering with footage
Accessing Police Body Camera Footage
West Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (W. Va. Code 29B-1) provides the framework for public access to government records, including body camera footage. However, access may be limited by:
- Active investigation exemptions
- Privacy concerns for victims, witnesses, and bystanders
- Medical and juvenile information protections
- Court orders sealing certain recordings
- Ongoing litigation holds
To request body camera footage, submit a written Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the relevant law enforcement agency. The agency must respond within five business days.
Dashboard Camera Footage
Many West Virginia law enforcement vehicles are equipped with dashboard cameras. Dashboard camera footage is subject to the same FOIA request process as body camera footage. This footage often captures:
- Traffic stops from the officer's perspective
- Vehicle pursuits
- Roadside interactions
- DUI investigations
Recording in Specific Law Enforcement Contexts
During a Traffic Stop
You can record during a traffic stop in West Virginia. Practical tips:
- Mount your phone in a visible location on your dashboard or have a passenger record
- Inform the officer of any reaching movements before making them
- Keep your hands visible and movements slow
- If the officer tells you to stop recording, stay calm, say you do not consent, and raise it later rather than arguing at the roadside
- Continue recording until the encounter is fully concluded
During a Search
If police are conducting a search of your home, vehicle, or person, you can record the search. This provides documentation of:
- Whether officers exceeded the scope of the warrant
- The condition of your property before and after the search
- What items were seized
- Whether proper procedures were followed
At a Protest or Demonstration
Recording police at protests and demonstrations is widely treated as protected, though the Fourth Circuit has not decided a general right to record police. Officers may establish crowd control measures. Singling out people because they are recording invites a First Amendment retaliation claim, and police generally need a warrant to search a camera or phone they take. If you are recording at a protest:
- Stay behind police barriers if established
- Record from a safe distance
- Do not use the recording device in a way that could be perceived as a weapon
- Be prepared to move quickly if the situation becomes dangerous
During an Arrest
You can record your own arrest or the arrest of another person in a public place. If you are the person being arrested:
- You may not be able to continue holding or operating a recording device during a physical arrest
- Your device may be seized incident to arrest, but officers generally cannot search its contents without a warrant
- Live streaming preserves footage even if the device is taken
- Request that your personal property (including recording devices) be properly inventoried
Obstruction and Interference Laws
W. Va. Code 61-5-17: Obstruction of an Officer
W. Va. Code 61-5-17 makes it a misdemeanor to forcibly or illegally hinder or obstruct a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has held that the conduct must be forcible or otherwise illegal: lawful conduct is not enough, and constitutionally protected speech cannot be the basis for an obstruction charge (State v. Carney, 2008). Recording police, by itself, does not constitute obstruction. However, certain behaviors while recording could cross the line:

- Physically blocking an officer's path to prevent an arrest
- Threatening an officer or grabbing an officer's equipment
- Staying within 30 feet after a first responder's warning while acting to impede them (see the 30-foot rule below)
- Attempting to free a person from police custody
- Knowingly making a materially false statement to officers to impede an investigation (a separate offense, see below)
Obstruction under § 61-5-17(a) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $50 to $500, up to one year in jail, or both. Two related acts are separate offenses with their own penalties. Knowingly making a materially false statement to impede an investigation is a misdemeanor under § 61-5-17(c), punishable by a fine of $25 to $200, five days in jail, or both; it does not apply to statements by close family members of the person under investigation, and that person's own statements cannot be the basis for the charge. Disarming or trying to disarm an officer is a felony under § 61-5-17(b), punishable by one to five years in prison.
W. Va. Code 61-5-31: The 30-Foot Rule
Senate Bill 4 of 2026 added W. Va. Code 61-5-31, titled "Bystanders shall stand 30 feet back from first responders engaged in the lawful performance of their duties." It makes it unlawful, after receiving a verbal warning not to approach from someone you know or reasonably should know is a first responder engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, to knowingly and willfully violate the warning and approach or remain within 30 feet of the first responder while acting in a way to impede or interfere with the responder's duty, or to threaten or menace the responder with physical harm. First responders include law-enforcement officers, probation officers, firefighters, and emergency responders.
A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $50 to $500, up to one year in jail, or both. The Governor approved the bill on April 1, 2026, and it took effect June 12, 2026. We have not found a court challenge to it. The law does not mention recording, but because it reaches anyone who stays within 30 feet after a warning while acting to impede or threaten, the lower-risk way to keep filming after a warning is from at least 30 feet away.
What Constitutes "Interference"
Simply standing nearby and recording is not interference. Under § 61-5-17(a), the question is whether your conduct was forcible or otherwise illegal, not whether it annoyed or distracted the officers. Physically blocking an officer, grabbing equipment, or staying within 30 feet after a warning while acting to impede them can cross the line.
If Your Rights Are Violated
What to Do Immediately
If a police officer violates your recording rights:
- Stay calm. Do not argue or physically resist.
- Say calmly that you are recording and are not interfering.
- Comply with orders under protest. If forced to stop, say "I am stopping under protest. I do not consent to this order."
- Note badge numbers and identifying information.
- Write down everything as soon as possible. Document the date, time, location, officers involved, and what happened.
- Preserve any footage that was captured before the interruption.
Legal Remedies
If your recording rights are violated, you may have several legal options:
- 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 civil rights lawsuit against the officer and/or department for violation of your First Amendment rights
- Internal affairs complaint with the officer's department
- Complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
- State tort claims for false arrest, assault, or seizure of property
- FOIA request for the officer's body camera footage of the incident
More West Virginia Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to West Virginia Recording Laws
More West Virginia Recording Topics
More West Virginia Laws
- West Virginia AI Meeting Recording Laws
- West Virginia Dashcam Laws
- West Virginia Data Privacy Laws
- West Virginia Deepfake Laws
- West Virginia Employee Monitoring Laws
- West Virginia GPS Tracking Laws
- West Virginia Police Bodycam Laws
- West Virginia Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record police officers in West Virginia?
Generally yes. West Virginia's one-party consent law (W. Va. Code 62-1D-3) allows you to record any interaction with police that you participate in. For recording as a bystander, the Fourth Circuit held in Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department (2023) that livestreaming a police traffic stop is protected speech but did not decide a broader right to record police; eight other federal circuits recognize that right. You must not physically interfere with police operations while recording.
Can a police officer tell me to stop recording in West Virginia?
No Fourth Circuit or West Virginia decision settles whether an officer may order you to stop recording in a public place when you are not interfering. If an officer tells you to stop, stay calm, say you do not consent, and challenge it later rather than resisting. Comply with legitimate safety orders (such as moving back) and continue recording from a greater distance.
Can police confiscate my phone or camera in West Virginia?
They cannot search it without a warrant. Under Riley v. California (2014), police need a warrant to search the contents of your phone. Officers cannot delete your recordings or force you to do so. A device may be seized incident to a lawful arrest, but its contents still require a warrant to search.
Do West Virginia police officers have to wear body cameras?
West Virginia does not have a statewide body camera mandate. Many departments have voluntarily adopted body camera programs. Whether officers at a specific agency use body cameras depends on that department's policies and resources.
What should I do if a police officer violates my right to record?
Stay calm, say that you are recording and not interfering, comply under protest, and document everything. You may file an internal affairs complaint, a FOIA request for body camera footage, or a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Consult a civil rights attorney about your options.
Updates
Corrected the page to state what the Fourth Circuit has actually decided (livestreaming a traffic stop is protected; a broader right to record police is undecided there), updated the count of circuits that recognize the right, separated police seizing a phone from searching it, marked recording inside police stations as unsettled, stated the forcible-or-illegal element of West Virginia obstruction law, and replaced an unsupported Justice Department claim with its documented 2012 position. We corrected the passcode and phone-unlock guidance to say courts are divided on forced fingerprint or face unlocks, separated the penalties for false statements and disarming an officer from the obstruction penalty, narrowed our description of State v. Carney, and reworded the suggested scripts so they do not present a general right to record police as settled in the Fourth Circuit.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added West Virginia's 30-foot first-responder law (W. Va. Code 61-5-31), in effect since June 12, 2026, and corrected a statement that the state has no fixed distance requirement.
Corrected a pronoun in our description of Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department to match the court's opinion.
Corrected the description of Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department to reflect that the officer was granted qualified immunity and the town's policy question was left open on remand, rather than describing it as settled controlling precedent for a general right to record police, and replaced a dead Riley v. California citation link.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
West Virginia Code
§ 62-1D-3Interception of communications generally.In forcecited in 36 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this article it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Intentionally intercept, attempt to intercept or procure any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, oral or electronic communication; or (2) Intentionally disclose or intentionally attempt to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this article; and (3) Intentionally use or disclose or intentionally attempt to use or disclose the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication or the identity of any party thereto, knowing or having reason to know that such information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this article. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not more than five years or fined not more than $10,000 or both fined and imprisoned.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1999
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1999, 200 F.3d 109)“…77 -23a-4, 77-23a-11; Va. Code Ann. §§ 19.2-62 , 19.2-69; W. Va.Code §§ 62-1D-3, 62-1D-12; Wis. Stat. § 968.31 ; Wyo.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Smart Glasses Recording Laws, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide
§ 61-5-17Obstructing officer; fleeing from officer; making false statements to officer; interfering with emergency communications; penalties; definitions.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) A person who by threats, menaces, acts, or otherwise forcibly or illegally hinders, or obstructs or attempts to hinder or obstruct a law-enforcement officer, probation officer, parole officer, courthouse security officer, correctional officer, the State Fire Marshal, or a full-time deputy or assistant fire marshal acting in his or her official capacity is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500 or confined in jail not more than one year, or both fined and confined. (b) A person who intentionally disarms or attempts to disarm a law-enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, parole officer, courthouse security officer, the State Fire Marshal, or a full-time deputy or assistant fire marshal acting in his or her official capacity is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Tiffanie Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 931 F.3d 307)“…or parole officer acting in his or her official capacity.” W. Va. Code § 61-5-17(a). Interpreting this statute,…”
- Brandon Pegg v. Grant Herrnberger (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2017, 845 F.3d 112)“…ficer (W. Va. Code § 61-2-10b(e)), obstructing an officer (W. Va. Code § 61-5-17(a)), and driving with an expired inspec…”
- United States v. Roseboro (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2009, 551 F.3d 226)“…vehicle to a stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony."); W. Va. Code § 61-5-17(e) ("Any person who intention- ally fle…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: West Virginia Manslaughter Laws: Voluntary, Involuntary and DUI Deaths, West Virginia Reckless Driving Laws: Penalties, Points and Speed
§ 61-5-31Bystanders shall stand 30 feet back from first responders engaged in the lawful performance of their duties.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this section, the term: "First responder" includes a law-enforcement officer as defined in §30-29-1 of this code, a probation officer as described in §62-12-6 of this code, or a firefighter or emergency responder as defined in §5H-1-2 of this code. (b) It is unlawful for a person, after receiving a verbal warning to not approach from a person he or she knows or reasonably should know is a first responder, who is engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, to knowingly and willfully violate such warning and approach or remain within 30 feet of the first responder acting in a way to: (1) Impede or interfere with the first responder's ability to perform such duty; or (2) Threaten or menace the first responder with physical harm. (c) A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500 or confined in jail not more than one year, or both fined and confined.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
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
- W. Va. Code 62-1D-3 - Interception of Communications(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- W. Va. Code 61-5-17 - Obstruction of an Officer(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- W. Va. Code 29B-1 - Freedom of Information Act(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)(supremecourt.gov).gov
- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, letter in Sharp v. Baltimore City Police Department (May 14, 2012) (federal position on the right to record police)(justice.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- W. Va. Code 61-5-31 - Bystanders shall stand 30 feet back from first responders(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov