Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania 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. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Pennsylvania is one of the highest-risk states in the country for Ring doorbell owners. The commonwealth's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 57) requires the consent of every party to a conversation before any audio recording is legal. Violating this law is not a misdemeanor or a civil infraction. It is a felony of the third degree, punishable by up to 7 years in prison and fines up to $15,000.
Every Ring doorbell sold today records audio by default. In a state where recording a single conversation without all-party consent can result in felony charges, Pennsylvania Ring doorbell owners face legal exposure that does not exist in most other states. This guide explains the specific statutes, penalties, court interpretations, and practical steps needed to use a Ring doorbell within the boundaries of Pennsylvania law.
Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania's all-party consent requirement is the central legal issue for Ring doorbell owners. Understanding the statute, its exceptions, and how courts have interpreted it is essential for anyone operating a Ring doorbell in the commonwealth.
The All-Party Consent Rule: 18 Pa.C.S. 5703
18 Pa.C.S. 5703 makes it a criminal offense to intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication. The only way to legally record a conversation in Pennsylvania is through one of the specific exceptions listed in 18 Pa.C.S. 5704, the most relevant being Section 5704(4): a recording is lawful when "all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception."
This is not a one-party consent framework. Your own consent as the Ring doorbell owner is not enough. Every person whose voice is captured by the Ring doorbell's microphone needs to have given prior consent for the recording to be legal.
How This Applies to Ring Doorbells
Ring doorbells record audio continuously when motion is detected or when the doorbell is pressed. In Pennsylvania, this creates legal risk in several common scenarios:
- Delivery drivers, postal workers, or visitors approach your door and speak. Your Ring doorbell captures their voice. They have not consented to the recording.
- Neighbors or passersby have a conversation near your front door. The Ring microphone picks up their words. Neither party has consented.
- Two-way conversation through the Ring app: When you answer the doorbell and speak with a visitor, you have consented. But the visitor has not given prior consent unless they were informed before the conversation began.
Each of these scenarios could potentially constitute a violation of 18 Pa.C.S. 5703.
The "Expectation of Privacy" Question
Pennsylvania's wiretap statute defines "oral communication" as any oral communication uttered by a person possessing an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. This definition creates an important legal question for Ring doorbell recordings.
A person standing on a public sidewalk having a loud conversation may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. But a person speaking quietly on your front porch, believing the conversation is private, likely does. Pennsylvania courts have not established a bright-line rule for when doorstep conversations carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, which means Ring doorbell owners operate in a gray area with felony-level consequences.
The Philadelphia DA's Position
The Philadelphia District Attorney's office has taken the position that audio recordings from Ring and other outdoor home surveillance devices may be admissible as evidence in criminal cases. This creates a paradox: the same recording that could serve as evidence might also constitute an independent felony if it was obtained without all-party consent.
Criminal defense and civil liberties experts have noted that the question of third-party audio recordings of unwitting private individuals captured by doorbell cameras remains largely untested in Pennsylvania appellate courts as of April 2026.
Video Recording Laws in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania's approach to video surveillance is far more permissive than its audio recording rules. The commonwealth does not have a general statute prohibiting video recording from your own property when the camera captures publicly visible areas.
No Expectation of Privacy in Public View
Video recording of areas visible to the public, including sidewalks, streets, driveways, and front porches, is legal in Pennsylvania. The key principle is that people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in spaces that are open to public observation.
A Ring doorbell pointed at your front door, walkway, and the public sidewalk beyond is recording areas where visitors have limited privacy expectations for video purposes. This is the primary reason many legal experts recommend disabling Ring's audio feature in Pennsylvania while leaving video recording active.
18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1: Invasion of Privacy
Pennsylvania's video-specific restriction comes from 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1, which prohibits knowingly viewing, photographing, videotaping, or recording another person without consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, when the act is done for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person. The statute also covers recording "intimate parts" of another person without consent under that same sexual-purpose requirement.
For Ring doorbell owners, 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1 means the camera cannot be positioned to record into bathrooms, bedrooms, or other private spaces where people may be undressed. A standard Ring doorbell installation aimed at the front entrance does not typically trigger this statute.
Under 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1(b), invasion of privacy is a misdemeanor of the second degree if there is more than one violation, and a misdemeanor of the third degree otherwise. The grading turns on the number of violations, not on prior convictions: Section 7507.1(a.1) provides that a separate violation occurs for each victim recorded under the same circumstances in one scheme or course of conduct, so recording two people in a single incident can already be graded as a misdemeanor of the second degree even with no prior offense.
Neighbor Disputes and Camera Angles
Pointing a Ring doorbell or supplemental camera directly at a neighbor's windows, patio, or fenced backyard can support a civil claim for invasion of privacy under Pennsylvania common law. The tort of intrusion upon seclusion applies when someone intentionally intrudes on another's private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Pennsylvania courts have recognized this tort, and a deliberate camera aimed at a neighbor's private spaces could satisfy the elements of such a claim.
HOA Rules and Ring Doorbells in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania homeowners associations operate under the Uniform Planned Community Act (68 Pa.C.S. 5101 et seq.) and the Uniform Condominium Act (68 Pa.C.S. 3101 et seq.). These statutes give HOAs broad authority to regulate exterior modifications through declarations, bylaws, and rules.
What HOAs Can Regulate
HOAs in Pennsylvania communities can adopt rules affecting Ring doorbell installation:
- Architectural review requirements: Many CC&Rs require written approval from an architectural committee before any exterior modification, including mounting a doorbell camera.
- Placement and appearance standards: HOAs may dictate where Ring doorbells can be installed, what colors are acceptable, and whether visible wiring is permitted.
- Audio recording prohibitions: Given Pennsylvania's all-party consent law, some HOAs have adopted rules requiring residents to disable audio recording on all exterior cameras.
- Common area restrictions: Condominium associations can prohibit individual unit owners from installing cameras that record shared hallways, lobbies, or parking areas.
Legal Conflicts Between HOA Rules and State Law
An HOA cannot authorize a Ring doorbell owner to violate 18 Pa.C.S. 5703. Even if the HOA expressly permits Ring doorbells with audio enabled, the owner remains individually liable for any wiretapping violation. HOA approval does not override state criminal law.
Conversely, an HOA may prohibit Ring doorbells entirely or impose conditions beyond what state law requires. Pennsylvania courts have generally upheld reasonable HOA restrictions on exterior modifications when those restrictions are properly adopted and consistently enforced.
Landlord and Tenant Rights
Pennsylvania's Landlord and Tenant Act governs the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants regarding property modifications like Ring doorbell installation.
Tenant Installation Rights
Tenants in Pennsylvania generally need written landlord permission before making exterior modifications to rental property. A Ring doorbell installation involves attaching a device to the door frame or exterior wall, which constitutes an alteration to the property. Most Pennsylvania leases include provisions requiring landlord consent for exterior changes.
Some landlords have adopted specific policies about Ring doorbells and other smart security devices. Lease provisions that prohibit Ring doorbells or surveillance cameras are generally enforceable in Pennsylvania. Tenants should review their lease carefully before purchasing or installing a Ring doorbell.
Landlord Camera Restrictions
Landlords in Pennsylvania can install security cameras in common areas of multi-unit properties with proper notice to tenants. Cameras cannot be placed inside individual rental units without tenant consent. A landlord-installed Ring doorbell that records a specific tenant's entrance should be disclosed in the lease or through written notice.
The all-party consent rule under 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 applies to landlords just as it does to homeowners. A landlord who installs Ring doorbells with audio enabled on a multi-unit property and records tenant conversations without consent faces the same felony liability as any other person who violates the wiretap statute.
Shared Area Recordings
Tenants who install Ring doorbells on their apartment doors in Pennsylvania face a unique challenge. The camera and microphone may capture activity in a shared hallway. While video recording of common areas is generally permissible due to reduced privacy expectations in shared spaces, audio recording of conversations in those spaces triggers the all-party consent requirement. The safest approach for apartment tenants in Pennsylvania is to disable the Ring doorbell's audio feature.
Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania law enforcement can access Ring doorbell footage through several legal mechanisms, each governed by the wiretap statute and constitutional protections.
Search Warrants
A search warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court is the standard mechanism for compelling disclosure of Ring footage. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, law enforcement needs probable cause and judicial authorization to access private recordings.
Subpoenas and Court Orders
Grand jury subpoenas and court orders can also compel Ring footage disclosure. The wiretap statute includes specific provisions governing how intercepted communications can be used in legal proceedings.
Amazon's Policies
Amazon's Ring changed its law enforcement access policies in January 2024, ending the Request for Assistance tool that allowed police to directly request footage from Ring users through the Neighbors app. Law enforcement now needs a valid legal process (warrant, subpoena, or court order) to obtain footage through Ring.
Amazon retains the right to disclose footage without user consent in emergency situations involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. The FTC's 2023 settlement with Ring for $5.8 million highlighted concerns about Amazon's data handling practices and employee access to customer recordings.
Voluntary Cooperation
Ring doorbell owners in Pennsylvania can voluntarily share footage with law enforcement at any time without a warrant. Voluntary disclosure does not violate the wiretap statute when the owner of the recording consents to sharing it.
The Exception for Crime Suspicion
Pennsylvania's wiretap statute includes an exception under 18 Pa.C.S. 5704(17), but it is narrow: it applies only to "any victim, witness or private detective licensed under" the Private Detective Act of 1953, and only when that person "is under a reasonable suspicion that the intercepted party is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a crime of violence and there is reason to believe that evidence of the crime of violence may be obtained from the interception." This exception is not available to an ordinary homeowner recording with a Ring doorbell unless that homeowner personally qualifies as a victim, witness, or licensed private detective, and its application to passive doorbell camera recordings has not been fully tested in Pennsylvania courts.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania imposes some of the harshest penalties in the country for illegal recording. The severity reflects the legislature's strong commitment to protecting conversational privacy.
Criminal Penalties
| Violation | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 (Wiretapping) | Felony, Third Degree | 7 years | $15,000 |
| 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1 (Invasion of Privacy, single violation) | Misdemeanor, Third Degree | 1 year | $2,500 |
| 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1 (Invasion of Privacy, more than one violation) | Misdemeanor, Second Degree | 2 years | $5,000 |
Civil Damages Under 18 Pa.C.S. 5725
Victims of illegal recording in Pennsylvania have a statutory right to sue under 18 Pa.C.S. 5725. The civil remedies include:
- Actual damages sustained as a result of the violation
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages at the court's discretion
- Litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees
These civil remedies are available in addition to any criminal penalties. A Ring doorbell owner who records a neighbor's conversations without consent could face both a felony prosecution and a civil lawsuit.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Pennsylvania
Given the severity of Pennsylvania's wiretap penalties, Ring doorbell owners in the commonwealth should take specific precautions:
-
Disable audio recording immediately. The Ring app allows you to turn off the microphone on all Ring doorbell models. In Pennsylvania, this is the single most important step for legal compliance. Video-only recording eliminates wiretap liability.
-
If you keep audio enabled, obtain documented consent. Post a clearly visible sign stating "AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING IN PROGRESS" near the Ring doorbell. While signage alone may not constitute "prior consent" under the strict reading of 18 Pa.C.S. 5703, it reduces the argument that recorded parties had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
Aim your camera at public-facing areas. Point the Ring doorbell toward your entrance, walkway, and public sidewalk. Avoid angles that capture neighbors' windows, private patios, or enclosed areas.
-
Check your HOA rules. Review CC&Rs for exterior modification requirements and camera-specific policies before installing a Ring doorbell.
-
Get written landlord approval if renting. Do not install a Ring doorbell on rental property without documented permission from your landlord.
-
Understand the felony risk. Pennsylvania is not a state where wiretapping violations result in a slap on the wrist. A third-degree felony conviction carries up to 7 years in prison. Treat audio recording compliance seriously.
-
Secure your Ring account. Enable two-factor authentication, use a strong password, and review Ring's privacy settings regularly. The FTC's 2023 enforcement action against Ring underscored the risks of poor account security.
-
Know the limits of the crime exception. Under 18 Pa.C.S. 5704(17), only a victim, witness, or licensed private detective who reasonably suspects the recorded party is committing, about to commit, or has committed a crime of violence may lawfully intercept without consent. This narrow exception is not a general defense for homeowners and does not authorize routine Ring doorbell audio recording.
More Pennsylvania Laws
Pennsylvania has specific laws across many legal areas that affect residents and visitors. Explore these related guides:
- Pennsylvania Recording Laws cover the full scope of the commonwealth's all-party consent wiretap framework.
- Pennsylvania Hit and Run Laws explain what to do after a hit and run accident in the commonwealth.
- Pennsylvania Lemon Law covers your rights when purchasing a defective vehicle.
This article provides general legal information about Pennsylvania Ring doorbell laws as of April 2026. Laws and their interpretations can change. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to use a Ring doorbell in Pennsylvania?
Ring doorbells are legal in Pennsylvania for video recording of public-facing areas. However, audio recording triggers Pennsylvania's all-party consent wiretap law (18 Pa.C.S. 5703). Recording audio without consent from every person captured is a felony of the third degree. Most legal experts recommend disabling the Ring doorbell's audio feature in Pennsylvania.
What are the penalties for illegal Ring doorbell recording in Pennsylvania?
Violating Pennsylvania's wiretap statute (18 Pa.C.S. 5703) through unauthorized audio recording is a felony of the third degree, carrying up to 7 years in prison and fines up to $15,000. Victims can also sue for civil damages of at least $1,000 plus punitive damages and attorney fees under 18 Pa.C.S. 5725.
Can I keep audio recording enabled on my Ring doorbell if I post a sign in Pennsylvania?
Posting a sign helps establish that visitors were informed about recording, but Pennsylvania law requires that all parties 'give prior consent' to interception. A sign alone may not meet this standard under a strict reading of the statute. The safest approach is to disable audio entirely or obtain explicit verbal or written consent from each person recorded.
Can my landlord prohibit Ring doorbells on my rental unit in Pennsylvania?
Yes. Landlords in Pennsylvania can include lease provisions that restrict or prohibit Ring doorbells and other exterior modifications. These lease terms are generally enforceable. Tenants should review their lease and obtain written permission before installing a Ring doorbell on rental property.
Can Pennsylvania police access my Ring doorbell footage?
Law enforcement in Pennsylvania typically needs a valid search warrant or court order to compel access to Ring footage. Amazon ended its warrantless police request program in January 2024. However, Amazon may still share footage without your consent in emergency situations. You can voluntarily share footage with police at any time.
Updates
Corrected the grading of invasion of privacy under 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1 (it turns on the number of violations, including multiple victims in one incident, not on prior offenses) and fixed the citations and links for Pennsylvania’s Uniform Planned Community Act and Uniform Condominium Act.
Corrected the description of Pennsylvania's invasion-of-privacy statute (18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1) to include its required sexual-gratification-purpose element, and clarified that the crime-of-violence recording exception (18 Pa.C.S. 5704(17)) applies only to victims, witnesses, or licensed private detectives, not to homeowners generally.
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.
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026)
§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 26 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 126 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania AI Meeting Recording Laws: All-Party Consent and Felony Penalties (2026)
§ 5725Civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
(a) Cause of action.--Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages. (3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) Waiver of sovereign immunity.--To the extent that the Commonwealth and any of its officers, officials or employees would be shielded from liability under this section by the doctrine of sovereign immunity, such immunity is hereby waived for the purposes of this section. (c) Defense.--It is a defense to an action brought pursuant to subsection (a) that the actor acted in good faith reliance on a court order or the provisions of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Agnew v. Dupler (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1998, 553 Pa. 33)“…and shall be entitled to recover from any such person ... 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725(a). The Wiretap Act defines an “oral co…”
- McCulligan v. Pennsylvania State Police (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2015, 123 A.3d 1136)“…ust and proper pursuant to Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 5725. In April 2015, Responde…”
- Keppley v. School District of Twin Valley (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2005, 866 A.2d 1165)“…lectronic or oral communication. Section 5725 of the Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5725, authorizes a civil action by any perso…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights
§ 7507.1Invasion of privacyIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (d), a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, knowingly does any of the following: (1) Views, photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records another person without that person's knowledge and consent while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where that person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (2) Photographs, videotapes, electronically depicts, films or otherwise records or personally views the intimate parts, whether or not covered by clothing, of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and which intimate parts that person does not intend to be visible by normal public observation. (3) Transfers or transmits an image obtained in violation of paragraph (1) or (2) by live or recorded telephone message, electronic mail or the Internet or by any other transfer of the medium on which the image is stored.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In Com. v. Dinell, Z. (2022), the Superior Court read section 7507.1(a)(1) as requiring four elements, including that the defendant acted for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, and vacated a guilty plea where the defendant denied any sexual purpose and was told no such element existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Muniz, J., Aplt. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2017, 164 A.3d 1189)“…18 Pa.C.S. §6312(d) (relating to sexual abuse of children); 18 Pa.C.S. §7507.1 (relating to invasion of privacy); 18 U…”
- Com. v. Dinell, Z. (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2022, 270 A.3d 530)✓A care home worker pled guilty to 14 counts of invasion of privacy for phone photos of nude residents, but said nothing sexual was involved. The court held section 7507.1(a)(1) requires a sexual purpose as an element and let him withdraw the plea.
- Commonwealth, Aplt v. Kingston, S. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2016, 636 Pa. 438)“…olations” of a particular criminal offense. See, e.g., 18 Pa.C.S. § 7507.1(a.1) (listing circumstances under which…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Pennsylvania Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026)
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 68 (Real and Personal Property)
§ 3101Short title of subpartIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
This subpart shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Condominium Act."
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 55 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gustine Uniontown Associates, Ltd. v. Anthony Crane Rental, Inc. (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2004, 577 Pa. 14)“…llee, 23 (citing Pennsylvania Condominium Law, 68 Pa. C.S. § 3101 et seq., Planned Community…”
- Gateway Towers Condominium Ass'n v. Krohn (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 2004, 2004 Pa. Super. 47)“…ction to foreclose a hen under the Uniform Condominium Act, 68 Pa.C.S. § 3101-3414. Krohn contends that the trial cou…”
- 1000 Grandview Ass'n v. Mt. Washington Associates (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1981, 290 Pa. Super. 365)“…t Property Act and has adopted the Uniform Condominium Act, 68 Pa.C.S. § 3101 et seq. (Adopted on July 2…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 5101Short title of subpartIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
This subpart shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Planned Community Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Skytop Meadow Community Association, Inc. v. C. Paige and M.A. Paige (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2017, 177 A.3d 377)“…planned community under the Uniform Planned Community Act, 68 Pa. C.S. §§5101-5414. The Association is a homeowners a…”
- SAW CREEK COMMUNITY ASS'N v. County of Pike (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2005, 581 Pa. 436)“…S [1] Act of December 19, 1996, P.L. 1336, No. 180, § 1 (68 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101 5414). [2] The Association paid th…”
- E.L.C.A. Development Corp. v. Lackawanna County Board of Assessment Appeals (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania 2000, 752 A.2d 466)“…hin the meaning of the Uniform Planned Community Act (Act), 68 Pa.C.S. §§ 5101-5414. The Taxpayers received separate…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 - Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 57 - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. 5704 - Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. 5725 - Civil action for unlawful interception(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 18 Pa.C.S. 7507.1 - Invasion of privacy(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- 68 Pa.C.S. Chapter 51 - Uniform Planned Community Act(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Pennsylvania Constitution - Article I, Section 8(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Pennsylvania Attorney General - Uniform Planned Community Act(attorneygeneral.gov).gov
- FTC - Ring employees illegally surveilled customers, failed to stop hackers (May 2023)(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC Sends Refunds to Ring Customers (April 2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- 68 Pa.C.S. 5101 - Short title of subpart (Uniform Planned Community Act)(legis.state.pa.us)
- 68 Pa.C.S. 3101 - Short title of subpart (Uniform Condominium Act)(legis.state.pa.us)