South Dakota
South Dakota Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
South Dakota gives employers wide latitude to monitor employer-owned phone lines, email, and computer systems under the federal wiretap law's business-use exception, and the state has not added a notice statute on top of it. South Dakota is also one of the few states with no tracking-device statute of any kind, which affects both GPS monitoring and how employees should think about company-vehicle tracking.
This article provides general legal information about South Dakota employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a South Dakota-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers South Dakota law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal social media, and conduct workplace video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive South Dakota's one-party consent recording rules (see our South Dakota recording laws guide and its workplace recording guide) or GPS law generally outside the employment context (see our South Dakota GPS tracking laws guide).
The Federal Baseline: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
South Dakota's starting point for any workplace monitoring question is federal, not state, law. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent (, part of the Title I scheme at sections 2510-2523), but the statute carves out a broad exception for the owner of a communications system. Under the 'business extension' exemption in (5)(a), equipment an employer furnishes and uses in the ordinary course of its business, including the phone, email, and computer systems its staff use, falls outside the Act's definition of a regulated interception device, letting employers monitor communications on that system in the ordinary course of business.
The leading case is Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983), where an employer monitored a sales line as part of a standing training program. The court held that once a monitored call is determined to be personal rather than business-related, the exception generally ends, and continued listening can create liability. South Dakota's own wiretap statute, , tracks the same one-party consent floor as federal law and adds nothing employment-specific, so state law fills the gap only in the areas below.
Does South Dakota Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. Only Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and, starting in 2026, Maine require written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use on the job. South Dakota has not enacted a comparable statute, and no bill addressing employer electronic-monitoring notice specifically has advanced through the legislature in the 2025 or 2026 sessions. An employer here can generally monitor company email, internet use, or phone lines on employer-owned systems relying on the federal ordinary-course exception, without a state-mandated notice step.
South Dakota Has No Social Media Password Law
South Dakota has not enacted a law restricting an employer's ability to ask an employee or applicant for a personal social media password. States such as Montana, Nebraska, and Nevada bar that practice; South Dakota does not, and this research found no South Dakota bill that would change that. The state's 2026 social media legislation, Senate Bill 111, addresses a different subject: it requires social media companies to give users access to their collected data and maintain portable data formats between platforms, a consumer-facing rule aimed at the platforms, not an employment protection.
That gap means a South Dakota employee has less specific statutory protection here than employees in many other states. A South Dakota employer that demands a password still faces reputational and, depending on the facts, common-law privacy exposure, but there is no dedicated statute an employee can point to the way a Montana or Nebraska employee could.
Video and Audio Surveillance in South Dakota Workplaces
South Dakota has no employment-specific video-surveillance statute, but general criminal law limits where a camera can point. makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to enter or remain on property to eavesdrop, or to install an unauthorized recording device, in a private place, with an exemption for law enforcement acting within the scope of duty. separately criminalizes voyeuristic recording, generally a Class 1 misdemeanor, rising to a Class 6 felony when the victim is 17 or younger and the perpetrator is 21 or older. A 2026 amendment, Senate Bill 41, adds a Class 5 felony for AI-generated intimate images of adults, effective July 1, 2026. An employer that installs a camera in a restroom, locker room, or similar private space is exposed to criminal liability under these statutes regardless of a posted policy.
Cameras in common work areas, sales floors, warehouses, and entrances are generally permissible without a state-specific notice requirement. Audio recording of employees is governed separately by South Dakota's one-party consent rule under ; an employer that wants to record conversations involving employees, rather than merely reviewing stored business communications, needs the consent structure that statute requires. Our South Dakota workplace recording guide covers that in depth.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of South Dakota Employees
South Dakota deserves a direct answer rather than a general link-out, because it is one of the clearest gap states in the country: search the South Dakota Codified Laws for "GPS," "tracking device," or "electronic location monitoring," and there is nothing. South Dakota has no statute of any kind that criminalizes placing a tracker on another person's vehicle, and no dedicated employer-notice statute comparable to New Jersey's.
That means secret tracking can only be reached through the general stalking statute, , which requires willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing a specific person, a pattern a single hidden tracker on a company vehicle does not fit. For a South Dakota employer, tracking a company-owned or leased vehicle carries no state-law notice or consent requirement at all: there is no statute to comply with, unlike states where an owner-consent exception excuses the employer from a general tracking-device law. An employee who drives a company vehicle should assume it can be tracked at any time. Tracking a personal vehicle without consent is not squarely addressed either, though doing so without a legitimate basis can still support a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim. See our South Dakota GPS tracking laws guide for the general framework, including United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks and South Dakota's Breach-Notification-Only Approach
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, the strongest law of its kind nationally, requires written consent before collection and creates a private right of action, and has produced multi-million-dollar settlements against trucking and time-clock vendors in recent years. It does not apply outside Illinois, and South Dakota has no equivalent statute.
South Dakota's only statutory reference to biometric data sits inside its data-breach notification law, through 22-40-26, which defines "personal information" to include an employer-assigned identification number combined with a required security code, access code, password, or biometric data generated for authentication. That definition matters only after a breach: it triggers a duty to notify affected residents within 60 days, and the Attorney General if more than 250 are affected. It creates no consent requirement before an employer collects a fingerprint or face scan, and there is no private right of action for misuse, only Attorney General enforcement of the notification duty. South Dakota employees relying on a biometric time clock are protected mainly by employer policy and common-law privacy claims, not a dedicated statute. See our South Dakota biometric privacy guide for more detail.
What South Dakota Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
Because South Dakota has not enacted a monitoring-notice statute, a social media password law, or a biometric consent law, the common-law invasion-of-privacy tort does more work here than in states with a denser statutory framework. The South Dakota Supreme Court recognized that claim in Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, holding that unlawful recording can support civil liability, extending even to others who knowingly process an unlawfully obtained recording.
An employee who believes an employer crossed a legal line still has concrete statutory options in the areas South Dakota does regulate. A hidden camera or recording device in a private space can support a criminal complaint under or 22-21-4. Interception of a conversation the employer was not a party to can support a Class 5 felony complaint under SDCL 23A-35A-20 and, since state law provides no civil cause of action, a federal civil claim under . South Dakota is also an at-will employment state, so a monitoring dispute does not by itself prevent termination for unrelated reasons. Given how much of South Dakota's monitoring law runs through common law and federal statutes, an employee with a specific fact pattern should keep records and consult a South Dakota-licensed employment attorney. For the broader picture, see our Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub and our general US recording laws guide.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about South Dakota employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Employment monitoring disputes often involve overlapping statutes, employer policy, and federal law, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Readers should consult an attorney licensed in South Dakota for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- South Dakota Recording Laws
- South Dakota Workplace Recording Laws
- South Dakota GPS Tracking Laws
- South Dakota Biometric Privacy Laws
- South Dakota At-Will Employment Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More South Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer read my work email in South Dakota?
Generally yes, once the email is on an employer-owned system. South Dakota has no state notice statute, so employers typically rely on the federal ordinary-course-of-business exception in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a) to review company email and internet use.
Can my employer ask for my Instagram or Facebook password in South Dakota?
There is no South Dakota law that prohibits it. South Dakota is not among the roughly two dozen states with a social media password statute, so employees have less specific statutory protection here than in many other states.
Does South Dakota law require my employer to tell me I'm being monitored?
No. South Dakota has not enacted an electronic-monitoring notice statute like Connecticut, Delaware, New York, or Maine, and no comparable bill has advanced through the legislature as of this writing.
Can my employer GPS track a company vehicle I drive in South Dakota?
Yes. South Dakota has no statute of any kind addressing GPS or tracking devices, so there is no state-law notice or consent requirement for tracking a company-owned vehicle. Assume a company vehicle can be tracked at any time.
Can my employer put a camera in a South Dakota workplace restroom or locker room?
No. SDCL 22-21-1 criminalizes eavesdropping and installing unauthorized recording devices in private places, and SDCL 22-21-4 separately criminalizes voyeuristic recording, both of which apply to employer-installed cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, or similar spaces.
Can my South Dakota employer require a fingerprint scan for the time clock?
There is no Illinois-style biometric consent statute here. Biometric data appears only in the breach-notification law, which requires notice after a breach but no consent before collection.
Is it legal to secretly record a conversation with my boss in South Dakota?
Yes, if you are a participant. South Dakota is a one-party consent state under SDCL 23A-35A-20, so an employee may record a conversation they take part in without telling the other participants, though employer no-recording policies can still be enforced through discipline.
What can I do if a South Dakota employer illegally intercepts my calls?
Illegal interception is a Class 5 felony under SDCL 23A-35A-20. South Dakota's wiretap chapter provides no state civil cause of action, so the primary civil remedy is a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520: the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, with no cap, plus punitive damages and attorney's fees.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the 18 U.S.C. section 2520 federal damages formula (it is the greater of actual damages plus profits or up to $10,000/$100 per day, with no overall cap, not a flat $100/day-to-$10,000 range) and re-anchored the employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring exception from 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i), a service-provider exception, to the correct business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 8 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 120 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527) · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425) · Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 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) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Alabama Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 111 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573) · Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41) · DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-19A: STALKING
§ 22-19A-1Stalking--Violation as misdemeanor--Second or subsequent offense a felony.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
No person may: (1) Willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or harass another person; (2) Make a credible threat to another person with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury; or (3) Willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harass another person by means of any verbal, electronic, digital media, mechanical, telegraphic, or written communication. A violation of this section constitutes the crime of stalking. Stalking is a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, any second or subsequent conviction occurring within ten years of a prior conviction under this section is a Class 6 felony. Any conviction for, or plea of guilty to, an offense in another state which, if committed in this state, would be a violation of this section and occurring within ten years prior to the date of the violation being charged, shall be used to determine if the violation being charged is a second or subsequent offense.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 23 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023
Leading cases: State v. McGill (South Dakota Supreme Court 1995, 536 N.W.2d 89) · State v. Asmussen (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 713 N.W.2d 580) · Schaefer Ex Rel. S.S. v. Liechti (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 711 N.W.2d 257)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-21: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY
§ 22-21-1Eavesdropping--Privacy--Misdemeanor.In forcecited in 14 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) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases: State v. Olson (South Dakota Supreme Court 1981, 305 N.W.2d 852) · State v. Reif (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 490 N.W.2d 511) · Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Dakota Audio Recording Laws, South Dakota Dashcam Laws
§ 22-21-4Prohibited recording or manipulated image--Penalty.In forcecited in 8 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) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2006
Leading cases: State v. Blair (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 721 N.W.2d 55)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-40: IDENTITY CRIMES
§ 22-40-19Definition of terms in §§ 22-40-19 to 22-40-26.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
Terms in §§ 22-40-19 to 22-40-26, inclusive, mean: (1) "Breach of system security," the unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted computerized data or encrypted computerized data and the encryption key by any person that materially compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal or protected information maintained by the information holder. The term does not include the good faith acquisition of personal or protected information by an employee or agent of the information holder for the purposes of the information holder if the personal or protected information is not used or subject to further unauthorized disclosure; (2) "Encrypted," computerized data that is rendered unusable, unreadable, or indecipherable without the use of a decryption process or key or in accordance with the Federal Information Processing Standard 140-2 in effect on January 1, 2018; (3) "Information holder," any person or business that conducts business in this state, and that owns or licenses computerized personal or protected information of residents of this state; (4) "Personal information," a person's first name or first initial and last name, in combination with any one or more of…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov
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 17 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) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases: State v. Woods (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 361 N.W.2d 620) · State v. Braddock (South Dakota Supreme Court 1990, 452 N.W.2d 785) · Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)
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
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- SDCL 23A-35A-20, Overhearing or recording communications by eavesdropping device as felony; one-party consent exception(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 22-21-1, Trespass to eavesdrop; installation of unauthorized recording devices in private places(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 22-21-4, Voyeuristic recording and manipulated-image statute(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 22-19A-1, Stalking prohibited(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 22-40-19, Definition of terms for South Dakota's data breach notification law, including biometric data used for authentication(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), business-extension exemption for employer-furnished equipment used in the ordinary course of business(law.cornell.edu).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2520, Federal civil cause of action for unlawful interception of communications(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(law.resource.org)
- Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22 (Apr. 6, 2022), common-law invasion of privacy for unlawful recording(ujs.sd.gov).gov
- 2026 South Dakota Senate Bill 111, social media data portability and interoperability (signed into law by Governor Rhoden, 2026)(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov