Maine
Maine Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Maine is a one-party consent state for audio recording, which gives Ring doorbell owners more flexibility than residents of all-party consent states. But that does not mean anything goes. Maine has specific statutes governing where cameras can be placed, what audio they can capture, and how recordings interact with privacy rights.
Three Maine laws directly affect Ring doorbell use: the wiretapping statute (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, sections 709 through 712), the violation of privacy statute (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, section 511), and the newer surveillance equipment placement law (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, section 2001). Understanding all three is essential for staying on the right side of the law.
Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells in Maine
Maine's wiretapping statute, Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, sections 709 through 712, establishes the rules for recording conversations. Section 710(1) makes it a Class C crime to intentionally or knowingly intercept any wire or oral communication. Consent is not itself an element of that offense. It operates through the definition of "intercept" in section 709(4), which covers hearing or recording a communication through an intercepting device by any person other than the sender or receiver of that communication, a person within normal or corrected subnormal hearing range, or a person given prior authority by the sender or receiver. The practical effect is one-party consent.
As a one-party consent state, a Ring doorbell owner who is present and participating in a conversation at their front door can legally record that conversation. The owner is one of the parties, satisfying the consent requirement.
When One-Party Consent Applies
If a delivery driver, neighbor, or visitor speaks with the Ring doorbell owner through the two-way talk feature, the owner can record that exchange. The owner's participation in the conversation provides the necessary consent under the statute.
Ring doorbells that passively record audio without the owner actively participating in a conversation present a different situation. The statute defines "oral communication" as any communication uttered by a person who exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation.
The Private Place Exception
Maine law creates a higher standard for recordings in "private places." Under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, section 511, installing or using a device to record sounds or events in a private place (defined to include changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms, and similar places) requires the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that location. The same consent requirement applies to a device positioned outside a private place that captures sounds which would not ordinarily be audible from outside.
A Ring doorbell mounted on a front door typically records in a semi-public area (a porch, stoop, or entryway), not a private place under the statute. Conversations held at normal volume on a front porch are generally audible to passersby, which reduces the speaker's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Conversations Within Normal Hearing Range
Maine law includes an important exception: a person does not need consent to record conversations within their range of normal unaided hearing. This exception is particularly relevant for Ring doorbells. If the device captures a conversation that the homeowner could have overheard while standing at their own front door, the recording likely falls within this exception.
Video Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Maine addresses video surveillance through two separate statutes, each targeting different concerns.
Violation of Privacy (Title 17-A, Section 511)
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, section 511 makes it a Class D crime to install or use any device in a private place without consent for the purpose of observing, photographing, or recording. The law also prohibits installing devices outside a private place that capture images or sounds originating inside that place, if those images or sounds would not ordinarily be visible or audible from outside.
For Ring doorbell owners, this means the camera can record outdoor areas like sidewalks, driveways, and front yards. It cannot be aimed through a neighbor's window or positioned to capture images inside their home. The key question is whether the camera records areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Violation of this statute is a Class D crime, carrying penalties of up to 364 days in jail and fines up to $2,000.
Surveillance Equipment on Private Property (Title 33, Section 2001)
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, section 2001 prohibits placing a camera or electronic surveillance equipment on another person's private property without the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's representative. This statute was amended in 2025 through Public Law 2025, c. 267.
The law requires that any camera placed with consent must be labeled with the owner's name and contact information. Landowners have the right to remove or disable any surveillance equipment placed on their property in violation of this section.
This statute does not prevent Ring doorbells mounted on your own property from recording views of a neighbor's property. It specifically addresses the physical placement of equipment on someone else's land.
HOA Rules and Ring Doorbells in Maine
Maine does not have a state law that specifically prevents homeowners associations from restricting Ring doorbell installations. HOA authority over security cameras typically comes from the community's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) and architectural guidelines.
Common HOA Restrictions
Many Maine HOAs treat doorbell camera installation as an architectural modification requiring prior approval. Common restrictions include rules about camera placement, visibility from the street, and whether the device can record common areas or neighboring units.
Before installing a Ring doorbell in an HOA community, review your governing documents for any provisions related to exterior modifications, security cameras, or electronic devices. Some associations require a formal application to an architectural review committee.
Condominium Associations
Condominium owners in Maine face additional considerations. Common hallways, entryways, and exterior walls are typically owned by the condominium association rather than individual unit owners. Installing a Ring doorbell on association-owned property without approval could violate the condo bylaws and expose the unit owner to fines or removal orders.
Landlord and Tenant Rights
Maine landlord-tenant law intersects with Ring doorbell use in several ways, depending on whether the landlord or tenant wants to install the device.
Tenant-Installed Ring Doorbells
Tenants in Maine can install security cameras inside their rental units without landlord permission in most cases. Exterior installations, including Ring doorbells, are a different matter. Because the front door and exterior walls are typically part of the building's common areas or the landlord's property, tenants should obtain written permission before mounting a Ring doorbell.
A Ring doorbell that faces another tenant's unit could create privacy concerns and potential liability. If the camera's field of view captures a neighbor's entrance or windows, the landlord may require removal to avoid disputes.
Landlord-Installed Cameras
Landlords who install surveillance cameras on rental properties must avoid monitoring private spaces. Cameras in common areas like parking lots, building entrances, and hallways are generally permissible. Cameras that record inside a tenant's unit or capture private areas violate Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, section 511.
Under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, section 2001, any surveillance equipment placed on property must have the landowner's authorization. For multi-unit rental properties, this means the landlord (as property owner) can authorize camera placement on the building's exterior, but must still comply with privacy protections for tenants.
Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage
Ring doorbell footage is frequently requested by law enforcement during criminal investigations. Maine residents should understand both federal and company policies that govern this access.
Warrant Requirements
Compelling Ring doorbell footage from Amazon (Ring's parent company) is governed by the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2703, rather than directly by the Fourth Amendment. Section 2703 sets a tiered standard: a search warrant is required for the contents of stored communications, while non-content subscriber and account records can be obtained with a court order under section 2703(d) or, for certain categories, a subpoena. Consistent with that structure, Ring requires valid legal process before disclosing customer data to police, with the specific process depending on what is sought.
Ring discontinued its "Request for Assistance" feature in early 2024, which had previously allowed police to request footage directly from Ring users through the Neighbors app. Law enforcement can still approach homeowners directly and ask them to voluntarily share footage.
Emergency Exceptions
Ring retains the ability to release footage without the user's permission in situations the company determines involve "danger of death or serious physical injury." This emergency exception operates independently of state law and is based on Ring's terms of service and federal law under 18 U.S.C. section 2702.
End-to-End Encryption
Ring offers an optional end-to-end encryption (E2EE) feature. When enabled, video is encrypted on the device and can only be decrypted on the user's linked mobile device. With E2EE active, neither Ring nor law enforcement can access the footage without the user's cooperation, even with a warrant directed at Ring.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Maine
Maine imposes both criminal and civil penalties for illegal recording, with severity depending on which statute is violated.
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Jail Time | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal wiretapping | Tit. 15, section 710 | Class C crime | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Sale of interception devices | Tit. 15, section 710 | Class B crime | 10 years | $20,000 |
| Violation of privacy | Tit. 17-A, section 511 | Class D crime | 364 days | $2,000 |
Civil Remedies
Under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, section 711, victims of illegal wiretapping can pursue civil damages of $100 per day of violation, plus recovery of attorney fees and litigation costs. This provides an additional avenue for neighbors or other affected parties to seek compensation without relying on criminal prosecution.
FTC Enforcement Against Ring
The Federal Trade Commission settled with Ring in 2023 for $5.8 million over privacy violations, including allegations that Ring employees had unfettered access to customer videos. The settlement required Ring to establish a comprehensive privacy and security program limiting employee access to customer recordings.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Maine
Following these practices helps Ring doorbell owners in Maine stay within legal boundaries.
Position the camera to record your own property. Aim the Ring doorbell at your front porch, walkway, and driveway. Avoid angling the camera to capture views inside a neighbor's home or into areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Understand your audio recording rights. As a one-party consent state, Maine allows you to record conversations you participate in. Be aware that passively capturing private conversations between other people on your porch may raise legal questions, especially if those conversations would not normally be audible from outside.
Use Ring's privacy zones. Ring doorbells allow users to designate "privacy zones" that the camera will not record. Use this feature to exclude areas like a neighbor's windows or fenced backyard from the camera's recording field.
Check your HOA or condo rules. If you live in a planned community, review your CC&Rs and architectural guidelines before installation. Submit any required applications and obtain written approval.
Get landlord permission if renting. Written authorization from your landlord protects you from lease violations and potential disputes over the installation.
Enable end-to-end encryption. Activating Ring's E2EE feature provides an additional layer of privacy protection for your recorded footage.
Post a visible notice. While Maine does not specifically require signage for residential security cameras, posting a small sign indicating video and audio recording is in use can help establish that visitors lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the recorded area.
More Maine Laws
Explore other Maine legal topics on RecordingLaw.com:
- Maine Recording Laws
- Maine Hit and Run Laws
- Maine Lemon Law
- Maine Surveillance Camera Laws
- Maine Data Privacy Laws
This article provides general legal information about Maine Ring doorbell laws and is not legal advice. Laws change over time and may be interpreted differently by courts. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to have a Ring doorbell in Maine?
Yes. Maine law permits homeowners to install Ring doorbells on their own property. The camera can record video of outdoor areas where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Audio recording is also permitted under Maine's one-party consent law when the homeowner participates in the conversation. The camera should not be aimed at private spaces like a neighbor's bathroom or bedroom windows.
Can my neighbor's Ring doorbell record my property in Maine?
A neighbor's Ring doorbell can record outdoor areas of your property that are visible from their property, such as your driveway, front yard, or sidewalk. Maine law does not prohibit video surveillance of areas where you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the camera cannot be pointed through your windows or positioned to capture images inside your home, which would violate Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, section 511.
Can police access my Ring doorbell footage in Maine without my permission?
Ring requires law enforcement to present valid legal process. Under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2703, a search warrant is required for the contents of stored video, while subscriber and account records can be obtained with a court order or, for certain categories, a subpoena. Ring discontinued its Request for Assistance feature that allowed police to directly request footage. However, Ring can still release footage without user permission in emergencies involving danger of death or serious physical injury. Enabling end-to-end encryption prevents anyone, including Ring, from accessing your footage without your linked device.
Do I need my landlord's permission to install a Ring doorbell in Maine?
Tenants should obtain written landlord permission before installing a Ring doorbell on a rental property's exterior. The front door and exterior walls are typically common areas or landlord property. Installing without permission could violate your lease and result in charges for any damage. Landlords may also require removal if the camera's field of view captures another tenant's entrance or private areas.
What are the penalties for illegal recording with a Ring doorbell in Maine?
Penalties depend on the violation. Illegal wiretapping under Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, section 710 is a Class C crime carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Violation of privacy under tit. 17-A, section 511 is a Class D crime with up to 364 days in jail and a $2,000 fine. Victims can also pursue civil damages of $100 per day of violation plus attorney fees under tit. 15, section 711.
Updates
Corrected the legal standard for law enforcement access to Ring footage, attributing it to the Stored Communications Act rather than the Fourth Amendment, and restated Maine's wiretapping statute using its actual mens rea and consent structure.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected a misattributed statute: Maine's "private place" consent rule for recordings (changing rooms, bathrooms) comes from Title 17-A, section 511, not the wiretapping exceptions in Title 15, section 712.
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.
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE, Part 2: SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSES, Chapter 21: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 511Violation of privacyIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
1. A person is guilty of violation of privacy if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law, that person intentionally: A. Commits a civil trespass on property with the intent to overhear or observe any person in a private place; [PL 1997, c. 467, §1 (AMD).] B. Installs or uses in a private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; [PL 1997, c. 467, §1 (AMD).] C. Installs or uses outside a private place without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein any device for observing, photographing, hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting images or sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be visible, audible or comprehensible outside that place; [PL 2023, c. 227, §1 (AMD).] D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr. (2013) the Maine Supreme Judicial Court read section 511(1)(B) to require an objectively reasonable expectation of being safe from surveillance, and held that people who entered a place solely to engage a prostitute were not persons entitled to privacy there.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr. (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2013, 60 A.3d 1286)✓A man faced 45 counts of violation of privacy for recording the clients of a Kennebunk prostitute; the Law Court held that people present solely to engage a prostitute were not 'persons entitled to privacy' there, so the indictment failed to charge the offense.
- Friedman v. Public Utilities Commission (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2012, 48 A.3d 794)“…statutes: 17-A M.R.S. § 402(1) (2011) (criminal trespass), 17-A M.R.S. § 511 (2011) (criminal violation of privacy),…”
- Cuso Mortgage Corp. v. Gauthier (Superior Court of Maine 2012)“…e counts of criminal invasion of privacy, presumably under 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B), for allegedly filming sexual act…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent, § 710 and § 511, Maine Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Maine Laws on Recording in Public: Your Complete Guide (2026)
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL, Part 2: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL, Chapter 102: INTERCEPTION OF WIRE AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
§ 710OffensesIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
1. Interception, oral communications prohibited. Any person, other than an employee of a communication common carrier, a law enforcement officer, an investigative officer, another employee of the Department of Corrections authorized to exercise law enforcement powers as described in Title 34‑A, section 3011 or a jail investigative officer or a jail employee acting at the direction of a jail investigative officer, carrying out practices otherwise permitted by this chapter, who intentionally or knowingly intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire or oral communication is guilty of a Class C crime. 2. Editing of tape recordings in judicial proceedings prohibited. Any person who knowingly or intentionally edits, alters or tampers with any tape, transcription or other sound recording, or knows of such editing, altering or tampering, and presents that recording in any judicial proceeding or proceeding under oath, without fully indicating the nature of the changes made and the original state of the recording, is guilty of a Class C crime. 3. Disclosure or use of wire or oral communications prohibited.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Williams v. Poulos (1993) affirmed section 710(1) liability for intercepting employee calls and held section 710(3)(A) and (B) require only knowledge the information came through interception. Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin (2014) allowed a parent's vicarious consent for a young child only on a good faith best-interest belief.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2014, 92 A.3d 1144)✓A father recorded his six-year-old daughter's nightly calls with her mother after overhearing abusive remarks; the court held a parent with a good faith, objectively reasonable best-interest belief may vicariously consent under section 709(4)(C), so section 710 was not violated.
- Archer v. Androscoggin County (Superior Court of Maine 2022)✓An attorney sought recordings of another inmate's jail calls under Maine's public records law; the court applied the wiretap chapter that makes interception a crime under section 710 and held a court-appointed defense lawyer is not within the section 712(4) disclosure exception.
- Williams v. Poulos (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 1993)✓Company owners secretly recorded employee phone calls using alligator clips wired to a VCR, and their lawyers then used the tapes; the First Circuit affirmed liability under section 710, holding subsection 3 requires only knowledge that the material came from an interception.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Maine Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy Rights (2026), Maine Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Cell, Landline, and VoIP (2026)
§ 711Civil remedyIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
Any party to a conversation intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses such communications and shall be entitled to recover from any such persons: [PL 1973, c. 561 (NEW).] 1. Damages. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation; and 2. Attorney's fee. A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2009
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Simpson v. Cumberland County (Superior Court of Maine 2009)“…additional claims, including: (1) an alleged violation of 15 M.R.S. § 711 - which provides a civil damages remedy…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Maine Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Defenses (2026), Maine Smart Glasses Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 712ExceptionsIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
1. Switchboard operators, communication common carrier agent. It is not a violation of this chapter for an operator of a switchboard or an officer, employee or agent of any communication common carrier, as defined in this chapter, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the carrier of the communication, provided that the communication common carriers shall not utilize service for observing or random monitoring, except for mechanical or service quality control checks, nor shall any such officer, employee or agent use or disclose to another the contents as defined in this chapter of the communication so intercepted. 2. Investigative officers.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2014
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Desjardins (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1979, 401 A.2d 165)“…nd under the circumstances was subject to the provisions of 15 M.R.S.A. § 712, which specifically proscribe the use o…”
- Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2014, 92 A.3d 1144)“…sent of either party to the call, and that no exception to 15 M.R.S. § 712 applied to allow Glenn to consent vica…”
- State v. Cyran (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1991, 586 A.2d 1238)“…federal guidelines apply here, he specifically argues that 15 M.R.S.A. § 712 (Supp.1990) should be interpreted as pr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026), Maine Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026), Maine AI Meeting Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Class C Penalties
§ 709DefinitionsIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
The following words and phrases as used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise indicates, shall have the following meanings. [PL 1973, c. 561 (NEW).] 1. Communication common carrier. "Communication common carrier" means any telephone or telegraph company. 1-A. Administration of criminal justice. 1-B. Administration of juvenile criminal justice. 1-C. Administration of juvenile justice. "Administration of juvenile justice" has the same meaning as in section 3003, subsection 1‑A. 2. Contents. "Contents," when used with respect to any wire or oral communication, means any information concerning the identity of the parties to such communication or the existence, contents, substance, purport or meaning of that communication. 3. Intercepting device. "Intercepting device" means any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire or oral communication other than: A. Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility or any component thereof being used by a communication common carrier in the ordinary course of its business or extension telephones used by a subscriber to telephone service; or [PL 1973, c. 561 (NEW).] B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2014, 92 A.3d 1144)“…nterception of Wire and Oral Communications Act (the Act), 15 M.R.S. §§ 709-713 (2012),1 and (2) whether the court…”
- State v. Kehling (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1991, 601 A.2d 620)“…e Maine’s Interception of Wire and Oral Communications Act, 15 M.R.S.A. §§ 709-713 (Supp.1991). As to the sentence, we…”
- State v. Cyran (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1991, 586 A.2d 1238)“…versations. Nevertheless, both Maine’s wiretap regulations, 15 M.R.S.A. §§ 709-712, and the applicable federal provisi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Maine Nursing Home Camera Laws: No Statute, Private-Place Risk
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 33: PROPERTY, Chapter 43: PLACEMENT OF EQUIPMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
§ 2001Placement of cameras and electronic surveillance equipment on private propertyIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. Prohibition. A person may not place a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended outside on the private property of another without the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's representative, unless the placement is pursuant to a warrant. 2. Labeling. A person who places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment described in subsection 1 on the private property of another with the written consent of the landowner or the landowner's representative or pursuant to a warrant shall label the camera or electronic surveillance equipment with that person's name and contact information. 3. Remove or disable; abandoned camera or electronic surveillance equipment. A landowner or the landowner's representative may remove or disable a camera or electronic surveillance equipment placed on the landowner's private property in violation of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Also relied on in: Maine Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Maine GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2702Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or recordsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c)— a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service— on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service; solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 259 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Freeman v. Directv, Inc. (2006) held Sections 2702 and 2707 do not support secondary liability claims such as aiding and abetting or conspiracy. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless (2017) applied Section 2702(c)(4)'s emergency exception and found a provider's good-faith reliance on a law enforcement request a complete defense.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Matthew Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LL (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2017, 875 F.3d 243)✓A detective sent Verizon a certified emergency form after an arson, and Verizon released the subscriber's non-content cell records; the Fifth Circuit applied an objective good faith standard to section 2702(c)(4) and held Verizon statutorily immune from the SCA suit.
- Doe 1 v. AOL LLC (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009, 552 F.3d 1077)“…rs, alleging violations of federal electronic privacy law, 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (a). A subclass of AOL members who are…”
- Freeman v. Directv, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2006, 457 F.3d 1001)✓Users whose message board posts were seized from a website operator and passed to DirecTV sued for aiding and abetting and conspiracy; the Ninth Circuit held sections 2702 and 2707 name who can be liable and do not support secondary liability, affirming dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Stored Communications Act Explained: 18 U.S.C. § 2701, Georgia Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Hawaii Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 2703Required disclosure of customer communications or recordsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures and, in the case of a court-martial or other proceeding under chapter 47 of title 10 (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), issued under section 846 of that title, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the President) by a court of competent jurisdiction. A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communications services of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that has been in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for more than one hundred and eighty days by the means available under subsection (b) of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 776 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Carpenter v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2018, 585 U.S. 296)“…s were “relevant and material to an ongoing investigation.” 18 U. S. C. §2703(d). That showing falls well short of th…”
- United States v. Warshak (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010, 631 F.3d 266)“…e for 180 days or less “only pursuant to a warrant.” 18 U.S.C. § 2703(a). The government has three options fo…”
- Guest v. Leis (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2001, 255 F.3d 325)“…communications and subscriber information, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (a), (b), and (c). Subsection (a) provi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules for Calls, Mississippi Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Surveillance Rules (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 709-712 (Interception of Wire and Oral Communications)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 511 (Violation of Privacy)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 2001 (Placement of Cameras on Private Property)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Maine Legislature Law Library: Recording & Surveillance of Private Conversations(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 710 (Offenses)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 712 (Exceptions)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Ring Law Enforcement Guidelines(ring.com)
- FTC Ring Privacy Settlement (2023)(ftc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (Stored Communications Act)(law.cornell.edu)
- Public Law 2025, c. 267 (Maine Surveillance Equipment Amendment)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2703 (Stored Communications Act: required disclosure of customer communications or records)(law.cornell.edu)
- Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 709 (Definitions, including "intercept")(legislature.maine.gov)